NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.

[Andy Bowden]

I have been reading a book on the wars in Yugoslavia called Bosnia, Kosova & the West by Mike Karadjis of the Australian DSP.

The books thesis is that Western powers allowed Milosevic to expand, and repressed Bosnia etc to allow a "Greater Serbia" to take form. This Greater Serbia was encouraged because the West wanted a strong central authority to drive privatisation and debt collecting through - that independent Yugoslav Republics presumably could not.

To back this thesis the book points out the Western partition plans which awarded 49% of Bosnian territory - ethnically cleansed by Chetnik (ultra-right Serbs) millitias - to the Republika Srpska, a Serb Republic.

Other stuff I've read on the topic - Michael Parenti for example alleges the complete opposite, that NATO encouraged the break up of the Yugoslavia because Milosevic was too left wing and a series of independent republics would be easier to control.

To back this up, Parenti alleges that the KLA (Kosovar Liberation Army) was funded by the CIA and that the atrocities in Kosova perpetrated by the Serbs were exaggerated.

What analysis do Comrades take of the events in the Balkans and the Western response to them. I'll reply when other people have put forward their ideas.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden
The books thesis is that Western powers allowed Milosevic to expand, and repressed Bosnia etc to allow a "Greater Serbia" to take form. This Greater Serbia was encouraged because the West wanted a strong central authority to drive privatisation and debt collecting through - that independent Yugoslav Republics presumably could not.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

Western powers constantly supported secessionism and local nationalism -- until the end of the conflict in 1995. when NATO and UN troops came in. Market and capital overtaking is making a shift toward stabilization and economic unification now, but not then.


To back this thesis the book points out the Western partition plans which awarded 49% of Bosnian territory - ethnically cleansed by Chetnik (ultra-right Serbs) millitias - to the Republika Srpska, a Serb Republic.

In Bosnia in 1993. Serbs controled 73% of the territory. When Serb leadership crossed the line by excercising massive cleansing of Muslims in Srebrenica and Žepa in 1995. (keep in mind that up to that point ethnic cleansing on all sides was "overlooked"), USA gave Croatian and Muslim armies indirect assistance (CIA) in reducing the Serb territory to 40% -- Extra 9% were given back in the Dayton peace process.


Other stuff I've read on the topic - Michael Parenti for example alleges the complete opposite, that NATO encouraged the break up of the Yugoslavia because Milosevic was too left wing and a series of independent republics would be easier to control.

This has nothing to do with Milošević being on the "left" -- because he was not. He shifted towards nationalist politics in 1989. when he got the first chanse for it with his famous speech on Gazimestan. In other republics, such as Croatia and Bosnia, clericalists (Alija Izetbegović) and ultra-nationalists (Franjo Tuđman; and Radovan Karadžić as the Bosnian Serb leader) were gaining ground in first "democratic elections" by supporting each other to power while excercising rhetoric confrontations for show.


Both of the analyses make no sense.

[Andy Bowden]

Western powers constantly supported secessionism and local nationalism -- until the end of the conflict in 1995.

Why did they continue to enforce an arms embargo on Yugoslavia then? Even if the CIA did provide assistance to Bosnia, it would be far more effective to allow the Bosnian Army access to heavy weaponry to remove the Serbian advantage.

The blockade on Yugoslavia was, in practice, in favour of the Serbs as they already had the heavy weaponry.

If NATO want seccesionism, why has there been no moves for Kosovan independence, considering 80% of the population are ethnic Albanians?


In Bosnia in 1993. Serbs controled 73% of the territory. When Serb leadership crossed the line by excercising massive cleansing of Muslims in Srebrenica and Žepa in 1995. (keep in mind that up to that point ethnic cleansing on all sides was "overlooked"), USA gave Croatian and Muslim armies indirect assistance (CIA) in reducing the Serb territory to 40% -- Extra 9% were given back in the Dayton peace process.

Yeah. Serbia managed to take 49% of Bosnian territory, with the NATO backed partition plan, the Dayton agreement. It would be correct to say that 73% of Bosnia in the hands of Karadzic, and the ensuing upheaval that caused/s was strongly opposed by NATO - but at the same time their enforcement of a partition plan that removed almost half of Bosnia's territory, at the a time in which the Bosnian military was making ground shows that they weren't that opposed to 'Greater Serbia'.


This has nothing to do with Milošević being on the "left" -- because he was not. He shifted towards nationalist politics in 1989. when he got the first chanse for it with his famous speech on Gazimestan.

He's definitely not 'Left' in any way that people on this forum would recognise. We wouldn't recognise Saddam Hussein or the Former Soviet Union as Left either. Parenti's analysis is that because Milosevic had some leftovers of the planned economy this - like the Former Soviet Union - acted as a barrier to Capital.

And he was removed, allegedly due to this 'barrier'.


In other republics, such as Croatia and Bosnia, clericalists (Alija Izetbegović) and ultra-nationalists (Franjo Tuđman; and Radovan Karadžić as the Bosnian Serb leader) were gaining ground in first "democratic elections" by supporting each other to power while excercising rhetoric confrontations for show.

Dunno about Itzebegovic, but yeah, Tudjman and Milosevic certainly became pals quick - as demonstrated by Dayton.

[Severian]

One, not all "Western powers" supported the same side.

One NATO member - Greece - was consistently pro-Belgrade.

Germany, early on, lined up with Croatia and Slovenia. Croatia was initially German client regimes, but eventually switched its main allegiance to Washington.

Washington played one side against another. At first, it briefly refused to recognize the newly independent republics. Then it postured as their supporters - while supporting the arms embargo which did aid Milosevic.

While verbally supporting the embargo, the Clinton administration worked to keep a trickle of weapons going through to Bosnia - but not too many. Weapons piled up in Croatian seaports - and Washington would pressure Zagreb to let a few through. There was one mainstream journalist who did a detailed description of this...can't remember the name.

When the time was right, Washington imposed a settlement on all parties, with U.S.-led occupation troops to enforce it. Washington maximized its power in Yugoslavia - and Europe - by this policy. Each of the other intervening powers sought to maximize its own influence against rivals.

In doing so, they contributed greatly to the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the bloody way that breakup happened. But Milosevic, with his open Serb chauvinism, did more to break up Yugoslavia than any other individual.

I don't know to what extent the Western powers were conscious of seeking the best conditions for privatization, etc. But I'd suggest that neither a centralized state nor multiple statelets is decisive there.

Rather, it's the unity or disunity of the working class. The bloody ethnic conflict, and the current strength of parties based on ethnic division and chauvinism, greatly damage that unity - and harm the ability of the working class to resist privatization and other moves towards capitalism.

Despite which, the former Yugoslavia hasn't exactly been made into the most profitable area for investment.

[Edelweiss]

There isn't much to add of what Severian said, he summs up what happened quiet nicely. The smashing of Yugoslavia wouldn't have been possible without the support of foreign powers, especially Germany played a key role with it's early acknowledgement of the Croatian state.

And not that I have any sympathies for Milosevic, but in all fairness, I think it's also important to distinguish bewteeen the Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic in this conflict. I'm convinced that despite of Milosevic's military and political support for the Bosnian army, he was never able to fully control it, and the Bosnian serb leaders. It's quiet the opposite, Milosevic did advocate a peace treaty way before Dayton, but the Bosnian serb leaders did reject it. I'm also not sure that Milosevic did approve, or even did order all crimes commited by the Bosnian serbs.


Originally posted by "Andy"
If NATO want seccesionism, why has there been no moves for Kosovan independence, considering 80% of the population are ethnic Albanians?

They did, are are still doing. Kossova is de facto independent. The thugs of the KLA where supported by both German and US innteligence from the beginning. The bombings on Belgrade and the NATO campaign in Kossova where justified with fabricated, in any case exaggerated, massacres, as you have mentioned earlier youself.

[Guerrilla22]

They did, are are still doing. Kossova is de facto independent. The thugs of the KLA where supported by both German and US innteligence from the beginning. The bombings on Belgrade and the NATO campaign in Kossova where justified with fabricated, in any case exaggerated, massacres, as you have mentioned earlier youself.

The US now wants Kosovo to once again become pary of Serbia. It was pretty simple, Milosevic didn't fit into the strategic economic plan of the US or the larger members of the EU, so reports about genocide were exploited and Serbia was bombed into submission. Naturally the Serbian population turned on Milosevic and a more economically friendly government took over. Business as usual.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)Why did they continue to enforce an arms embargo on Yugoslavia then?[/b]

Simple. Because Yugoslavia and Milošević politics were the opposite of disintegration.


The blockade on Yugoslavia was, in practice, in favor of the Serbs as they already had the heavy weaponry.

What?

I don't get it.


If NATO want seccesionism, why has there been no moves for Kosovan independence, considering 80% of the population are ethnic Albanians?

There was. What about the bombing of Serbia in 1999.?


Serbia managed to take 49% of Bosnian territory...

It wasn't Serbia that "took" 49% of Bosnian land, but Serbs who were already living there gained that territory as an entity within Bosnia, shrinked from %73 by operations in fall of 1995.


...but at the same time their enforcement of a partition plan that removed almost half of Bosnia's territory, at the a time in which the Bosnian military was making ground shows that they weren't that opposed to 'Greater Serbia'.

You obviously don't know what was going on. That territory is within Bosnia today, and was never to have any independent connection with Serbia or any other country. I live there. Today West is pushing for removal of internal canton and entity borders within Bosnia.

Dayton peace preserved the unity of Bosnia in it's old borders. It reunified it from within.


Dunno about Itzebegovic, but yeah, Tudjman and Milosevic certainly became pals quick - as demonstrated by Dayton.

I am speaking of 1989., the first democratic elections in Bosnia when the nationalists pushed each other to power, for to start a war in which they would become - simply speaking - rich and powerful.


Severian
Then it postured as their supporters - while supporting the arms embargo which did aid Milosevic.

Embargo upon who??


But Milosevic, with his open Serb chauvinism, did more to break up Yugoslavia than any other individual.

Severian, that is the official UK-US statesmen' explanation which is supposed to justify the bombardment of Serbia, and to keep Izetbegović and Tuđman - their "alies" - clean of all charges. All of them were guilty of "open chauvinism", Milošević for the introduction of gangster capitalism, Tuđman for his militarist practices, and Izetbegović, for his open Muslim clericalism.


I don't know to what extent the Western powers were conscious of seeking the best conditions for privatization, etc. But I'd suggest that neither a centralized state nor multiple statelets is decisive there.

It's simple. They just needed the restoration of competitive market relations for the future grounds of cheap labor power and investment. The reacquisition of state capital was to be led by the home parties alone, particularly the nationalist leaders and "technocrat" bureaucracy, people who - as I can see for my own two eyes - gained allot from that war.

[Andy Bowden]

What?

I don't get it.

The Serbs dominated the JNA (Yugoslav National Army). This meant they had the tanks, artillery pieces, etc.

In contrast the Republics that were fighting to get out of Yugoslavia only had weak territorial defence forces.

So this meant that when an arms embargo was declared, instead of cutting off oxygen to all sides it meant preserving an unequal status quo in terms of military force.


There was. What about the bombing of Serbia in 1999.?

NATO bombed Serbia, correct, but nowhere in Rambouillet or any other agreement did they support the idea of an independent Kosova. NATO leaders have explicitly spoken against it.


It wasn't Serbia that "took" 49% of Bosnian land, but Serbs who were already living there gained that territory as an entity within Bosnia, shrinked from %73 by operations in fall of 1995.

It's true that Serbians formed a large percentage of the Bosnian population, but

a) Republika Srpska was carved out by ethnic cleansing, and

b) not all Serbs where behind Karadzic. The Serb Civic Council opposed the war and the Chetniks but was not invited to the Dayton Talks.


That territory is within Bosnia today, and was never to have any independent connection with Serbia or any other country. I live there. Today West is pushing for removal of internal canton and entity borders within Bosnia.

Dayton peace preserved the unity of Bosnia in it's old borders. It reunified it from within.

So, in your opinion as someone who lives in Bosnia, do you think Republika Srpska will dissolve? Can this be done peacefully?

:unsure:

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 27 2006, 05:14 PM
So this meant that when an arms embargo was declared, instead of cutting off oxygen to all sides it meant preserving an unequal status quo in terms of military force.

But arms embargo was upon "Yugoslavia" which by april 1992. consisted only of Serbia and Montenegro. It was upon Milošević, get it? From what I can tell, Croatian and Muslim forces had no problem to gather arms.


NATO bombed Serbia, correct, but nowhere in Rambouillet or any other agreement did they support the idea of an independent Kosova. NATO leaders have explicitly spoken against it.

The media I was listening to says otherwise. :lol:


So, in your opinion as someone who lives in Bosnia, do you think Republika Srpska will dissolve? Can this be done peacefully?

It will be done, but not soon, because no one will try to force it. The "dissolving" is only a part of the nationalst rhetoric used for gatering support.


b) not all Serbs where behind Karadzic. The Serb Civic Council opposed the war and the Chetniks but was not invited to the Dayton Talks.

Behind Karadžić? Well, of course not, that goes without saying. But, I've never heard of the "Civic Council". Do you have their name in Serbian?

[Guerrilla22]

NATO bombed Serbia, correct, but nowhere in Rambouillet or any other agreement did they support the idea of an independent Kosova. NATO leaders have explicitly spoken against it.

Exactly. NATO essentielly used the KLa as its puppets, arming them trainning them, ect., falsely giving the KLa the impression that nATO supported Kosovar independence. As soon as the Serbian army pulled out of there and NATO moved in, NATO forces immidetly began disarming the KLA and even went to the point of sending in US army special forces to eliminate members of the KLA that refused to disarm.

[Edelweiss]

It should be noted though theat there was a paradigm change since 9/11 within the US government. The KLA, still a powerful political factor in Kossova, is now officially on the US list of terrorist organisations, and recieves neither support by funds or weapons by the CIA anymore.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:39 AM
...NATO forces immidetly began disarming the KLA and even went to the point of sending in US army special forces to eliminate members of the KLA that refused to disarm.

Well... :unsure: -_- KLA was disarmed because it no longer served as a "liberation army", but -- you should be aware that "dismantled" KLA resides in the form of Kosovar army and police, with almost no internal changes. It's former commander became a prime minister in Kosovar government.

[Andy Bowden]

But arms embargo was upon "Yugoslavia" which by april 1992. consisted only of Serbia and Montenegro. It was upon Milošević, get it? From what I can tell, Croatian and Muslim forces had no problem to gather arms.

Wasn't Bosnia still officially a part of Yugoslavia at that point with little international recognition?


The media I was listening to says otherwise.

What Western leaders or agreements put forward by western governments have supported independence for Kosova?

Theres a big difference between an army achieving it's goal - in this case independence and it being coopted. SF had people in Stormont; needless to say a United Ireland didn't happen.


But, I've never heard of the "Civic Council". Do you have their name in Serbian?

Heres some info I found on them - http://www.rightlivelihood.org/recip/serb-cc.htm

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Sep 27 2006, 11:40 AM--> (DJ-TC @ Sep 27 2006, 11:40 AM) But arms embargo was upon "Yugoslavia" which by april 1992. consisted only of Serbia and Montenegro. It was upon Milošević, get it? From what I can tell, Croatian and Muslim forces had no problem to gather arms. [/b]
You could not be more wrong. It's not surprising, though, that there's a lot of mythology about the war in the "Republica Srpska". Most of it tending to complain about the imperialists not being even-handed, and allegedly favoring their enemies. (In reality, the imperialists only favored themselves.)

You seriously think the Bosnian forces were as well armed as the others? (Croatia did get a lot of German weapons......) The whole course of the war argues against that peculiar view....

The UN embargo was on the "former Yugoslavia." Everyplace that was formerly part of Yugoslavia.

And since Milosevic controlled the former Yugoslav army - it favored him.

In 1995 Clinton vetoed a bill that would have lifted the embargo on Bosnia (and only Bosnia.) (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/august95/8-01/index2.html)

Meanwhile, he was winking at Iranian arms shipments to Bosnia....within limits. (http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1802/Beelman/Beelman.html) The goal stated later...was to keep the Sarajevo government "alive."


Originally posted by DJ-[email protected]

Severian
But Milosevic, with his open Serb chauvinism, did more to break up Yugoslavia than any other individual.
Severian, that is the official UK-US statesmen' explanation which is supposed to justify the bombardment of Serbia, and to keep Izetbegović and Tuđman - their "alies" - clean of all charges. All of them were guilty of "open chauvinism", Milošević for the introduction of gangster capitalism, Tuđman for his militarist practices, and Izetbegović, for his open Muslim clericalism.

Since you say, Milosevic introduced "gangster capitalism" - that is, that he was the first - why are you objecting to my statement, then.

Of course there were other open chauvinists - that's one reason I didn't claim he was the only one responsible. But he was the first, and more responsible than any other individual.

He was exploiting Serb nationalist demagogy going back to '87. Already in 1989 - before there was any KLA, or anyone had declared their independence from Yugoslavia. He revoked Kosova's autonomy as soon as he took power - in response to demands by Kosovans for the status of a republic within Yugoslavia.

Nationalism begets nationalism - and nobody was going to stay in a Yugoslavia dominated by Serb chauvinism.

Again, it's an error to see the issue mainly as territorial unity or separation - to put the location of borders first. The larger issue is the class unity and solidarity of working people.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:33 PM
You could not be more wrong. It's not surprising, though, that there's a lot of mythology about the war in the "Republica Srpska".
Oh, of course: a fellow rev-leftist accepting right wing mythology. We do have access to foreign info sources, you know. :lol:


The UN embargo was on the "former Yugoslavia." Everyplace that was formerly part of Yugoslavia.

Are you 100% sure about that? Would you be 100% sure that it was implemented on all the govenments alike?


(In reality, the imperialists only favored themselves.)

But of course, how could I've been so blind. :rolleyes: :lol: ;)


You seriously think the Bosnian forces were as well armed as the others?

Nope.


He was exploiting Serb nationalist demagogy going back to '87. Already in 1989 - before there was any KLA, or anyone had declared their independence from Yugoslavia. He revoked Kosova's autonomy as soon as he took power - in response to demands by Kosovans for the status of a republic within Yugoslavia.

Nationalism begets nationalism - and nobody was going to stay in a Yugoslavia dominated by Serb chauvinism.

Again, it's an error to see the issue mainly as territorial unity or separation - to put the location of borders first. The larger issue is the class unity and solidarity of working people.

All of that, is indeed, a fact, and no one is disputing it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Sep 28 2006, 01:31 PM--> (DJ-TC @ Sep 28 2006, 01:31 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 04:33 PM
You could not be more wrong. It's not surprising, though, that there's a lot of mythology about the war in the "Republica Srpska".
Oh, of course: a fellow rev-leftist accepting right wing mythology. [/b]
You say that as if it's unusual. The "left" has always been heavily influenced by bourgeois pressures.


Are you 100% sure about that?

Yes, see sources. Given in earlier post. I'm also sure that, as I and others have said, the net effect of the embargo tended to help Milosevic and Karadic.


Would you be 100% sure that it was implemented on all the govenments alike?

I'm sure of the opposite. Besides what I pointed out earlier about Clinton winking at covert weapons shipments to Bosnia and Croatia (after 1994)....I gotta wonder if the UN embargo stopped Russia from sending weapons to its ally Milosevic.


All of that, is indeed, a fact, and no one is disputing it.

Then I gotta wonder why you objected to my statement that "Milosevic, with his open Serb chauvinism, did more to break up Yugoslavia than any other individual."

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Yes, see sources. Given in earlier post. [...] the net effect of the embargo tended to help Milosevic and Karadic. [...] I'm sure of the opposite.[/b]

I did. I'm not yet convinced.


Severian
Then I gotta wonder why you objected to my statement that "Milosevic, with his open Serb chauvinism, did more to break up Yugoslavia than any other individual."

Simple. If disintegration policies haven't already begun Milošević wouldn't step up on the scene as a significant personality chosen by party leadership in Belgrade, and wouldn't have an excuse to turn it in the direction he could exploit the most.

You made an overstatement in assessing Milošević's ability to influence the events which grasped their roots in time long before Milošević's time of making decisions in that manner.