Thank God for Sergei Lavrov. I watched Russia’s foreign minister in action yesterday on the BBC. Without hesitation he dismissed the absurd “exceptionalist” argument for Kosovan independence. Of course the BBC would like us to believe that Russia is being obstructive. It’s open season on Russia who is once again the Cold War baddy, this time because it is standing up for international law.
Some people have expressed fear that NATO will allow Kosovo to unite with Albania to create Greater Albania. They are missing the point. No formal union is necessary. Thanks in large part to NATO aggression, Greater Albania is already a reality since Kosovo’s southern border is non-existent. In any event Albania, like Kosovo, is not a real country – more like a giant swarm of clans eking out meager existences while battling each other for the spoils of drug-running and prostitution rackets when they are not settling vendettas according to the Kanun of Lek. Unemployment in Kosovo is reportedly somewhere around 50%. That sounds suspiciously low to me.
To avoid the accusation of forging a Greater Albania from the ruins of a Greater Serbia, NATO will rule out any formal union, keeping "separate" the two Albanias. Fortunately, all the KLA leadership have Swiss bank accounts to receive wires from Langley, Virginia in return for postponing union indefinitely.
Washington has a few problems, however. First of all, how are they going to prevent the Serbs from fleeing independent “Kosova”? It won’t do America’s already battered humanitarian image much good when the remaining 100,000 or so Serbs flee north.
Secondly, what about the Bosnian Serbs? Does anyone think they are not paying close attention to what is going on?
Thirdly, how will the US get around Russia’s UN security resolution veto?
Fourthly, what happens when Serbia decides to strangle the bastard infant state and cuts off the electricity and supply routes to the south?
And so on.
Unlike the idiots in the White House and Downing St., the Russians are chess players and are used to thinking this far ahead.
NATO must be gambling that it can humiliate the Serbs and get away with it without serious consequences. Detaching Kosovo from Serbia will destroy Serbia’s link to its past and slowly erode its identity. The idea is that Serbia will become another Balkan zombie state that takes orders from Brussels and Washington.
So if that is the game then perhaps Serbs should consider some or all of the following steps:
1) Provide transport and shelter for all Serbs wishing to leave Kosovo and make sure it is done in front of Western cameramen.
2) Expose the shenanigans of Western diplomats in Macedonia who are encouraging similar de facto secession of Western Macedonia.
3) Highlight US House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos' wish to appease jihadists with the gift of a Muslim state in the Balkans.
4) Encourage Bosnian Serb separation from the failed state of Bosnia.
5) Cut all electricity and supply routes to Kosovo from Serbia.
6) Highlight the fact that there is no border worth speaking of between Kosovo and Albania (ie. Greater Albania is alive and well).
7) Demand to know why there has been no protest at the destruction of ancient Serbo-Byzantine churches etc. a la failed campaign to stop the Taliban from blowing up the Bamyan Buddhas.
8) Put forward proposals to re-draw borders and liberate dozen of oppressed minorities across Europe and in the Caucasus.
And that's just for starters.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
December's target - The Sage of Surbiton
For as long as I can remember, Surbiton has been an English metaphor for smug suburban complacency. Those days may be numbered. Say hello to the new kid on the blog: Marko Attila Hoare (or MAH):
http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/
MAH is a half-Croatian, half-English “ex”-Trotskyist and the son of Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare, marginal figures on the so-called “decent humane left” of British/Croatian politics. The choice of the blog title is meant to be a pun on "Greater Serbia" (and with that, we can safely say we have reached the frontiers of MAH's wit).
According to his website, MAH helped draft the ICTY indictment of Milosevic. He was also a translator for an aid convoy to Tuzla during the war in Bosnia, a role proudly described as an act of solidarity with “the Bosnians”, that politically-loaded epithet which excludes the Bosnian Serbs.
MAH lived in Serbia sometime between 1998 and 2000 and professes a strong emotional attachment to Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia. This is a bizarre declaration since he spent the spring of 1999 in Belgrade not as defender of Serbian sovereignty but as an observer and supporter of the NATO blitz. Perhaps what he meant is that, like his ideological bedfellows, he feels an emotional attachment to the destruction of Serbia.
He is also the author of several books on Balkan history. I have read none of them and never will because I know precisely what to expect having scoured an assortment of his "scholarly" rantings in the blogosphere: The Serbs started all of the wars of secession. Milosevic was an evil fascist genocidal tyrant. The West bombed Milosevic to prevent the slaughter of thousand upon thousands of innocent Muslims blah, blah, blah. You get the idea.
Which begs the obvious question: how did this intrepid foe of the "fascist" regime manage to outwit the "genocidal tyrant's" ruthless security apparatus, with its presumably vast network of spies and informants, and remain at liberty in Serbia for two whole years, especially during the NATO "air campaign"? Did MAH walk around with a paper target on his head to blend in with his unsuspecting Serbian hosts? Or did he spend 78 sleepless days and nights peering nervously out of sewer gratings alongside comrades from the "anti-fascist" Otpor resistance? "Genocidal dictatorship” may sound sexy but I'm afraid the image is largely spoiled by MAH's effortless survival.
MAH, however, is more polished than your run-of-the-mill professional anti-Serb. A significant portion of his “scholarship” is aimed at promoting the moral equivalence between Serbian and Croatian atrocities during the Second World War.
Ordinarily this would be a tough sell given the hundreds of thousands of Serbs who died at the hands of the Ustashe in Jasenovac and elsewhere in the NDH. But MAH has a trump card up his sleeve – the insinuation of Serbian anti-semitism. The traditional WWII Balkan narrative which recognises the unspeakable atrocities against the Serbs is fundamentally flawed, says MAH, because it downplays the fate of a far smaller number of Jews who perished not only under the NDH but also at the hands of the collaborationist Nedic regime in Serbia:
http://www.southslavjournal.com/mah.html
By centering the Balkan genocide debate on the primacy of Jewish suffering, MAH cleverly yanks the spotlight away from Croatian collaboration. The biggest victims are put on trial and the precise number of Serbs massacred by a regime whose brutality shocked even the Nazis fades into academic irrelevance. So does the inconvenient fact that Germans built and ran the camps on Serbian soil whereas Jasenovac and sister camps were created by enthusiastic Croats:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/Almuli.html
MAH brushes all of this Equivalence Jamboree party-pooping aside and asserts that the Serbs were “never simply defenseless victims”. Serbian suffering, like Armenian suffering, is always somehow tainted. Unlike Jewish suffering, it can never be recognized in its own right. The fact that many Serbs fought back against their fate under the NDH is held against them. What a pity they didn’t meekly accept annihilation. Just imagine how Hollywood and MAH might have honoured them!!!
(Note, however, that "moral equivalence" is taboo in discussions of more recent Balkan bloodshed. Here there is one clear victim (the Muslims) and one clear perpetrator (the Serbs). The mere rumour of a Muslim death is sufficient to provoke howls of anti-Serbian rage in the op-ed columns of the NYT and the Washington Post.)
Unsurprisingly, MAH champions the “liberation of Iraq”. I suspect this dates back to the period when Slobodan Milosevic was Saddam Hussein and vice-versa, another magical piece of mainstream journalistic equivalence that conjured up the mythical beast Slobosaddam. According to legend, the wounded creature fled to Baghdad where it was finally captured and slain. But although this "liberation" fairy-tale imploded long ago, MAH remains adamant that the whole thing was a superb idea.
Critics are fed a foul stew of euphemisms, bogus analogies and pseudo-apologies. For instance, Abu Ghraib is conveniently dismissed as an “error” as though it were a friendly-fire incident and not the carefully planned and US-government approved application of Israeli torture techniques. The Americans, of course, bear no blame for four years of unstoppable sectarian killings that, in retrospect, have made Saddam look like an unappreciated humanitarian.
Moreover, MAH thinks that Weapons of Mass Destruction (as in biological weapons etc). should never have been the main rationale for the invasion, not because there were no WMDs but because even a machete qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction, as we saw in Rwanda. Is this a plea for an international ban on machetes (and what about bread knives)? Or a case for invading other machete-wielding nations and regions (eg. The Democratic Republic of Congo, the Amazon, Bermuda)? Or perhaps a call to think twice before launching the next war of aggression?
The correct answer is none of the above. MAH is simply offering advice on how to spin future illegal and immoral invasions. The case for war against Iraq, it seems, should have been based entirely on stale and discredited “humanitarian principles”.
Genocide, tyranny, dictatorship, liberation. It’s unquestionably exciting times for sleepy Surbiton, new outpost of the militant liberal international revolution.
http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/
MAH is a half-Croatian, half-English “ex”-Trotskyist and the son of Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare, marginal figures on the so-called “decent humane left” of British/Croatian politics. The choice of the blog title is meant to be a pun on "Greater Serbia" (and with that, we can safely say we have reached the frontiers of MAH's wit).
According to his website, MAH helped draft the ICTY indictment of Milosevic. He was also a translator for an aid convoy to Tuzla during the war in Bosnia, a role proudly described as an act of solidarity with “the Bosnians”, that politically-loaded epithet which excludes the Bosnian Serbs.
MAH lived in Serbia sometime between 1998 and 2000 and professes a strong emotional attachment to Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia. This is a bizarre declaration since he spent the spring of 1999 in Belgrade not as defender of Serbian sovereignty but as an observer and supporter of the NATO blitz. Perhaps what he meant is that, like his ideological bedfellows, he feels an emotional attachment to the destruction of Serbia.
He is also the author of several books on Balkan history. I have read none of them and never will because I know precisely what to expect having scoured an assortment of his "scholarly" rantings in the blogosphere: The Serbs started all of the wars of secession. Milosevic was an evil fascist genocidal tyrant. The West bombed Milosevic to prevent the slaughter of thousand upon thousands of innocent Muslims blah, blah, blah. You get the idea.
Which begs the obvious question: how did this intrepid foe of the "fascist" regime manage to outwit the "genocidal tyrant's" ruthless security apparatus, with its presumably vast network of spies and informants, and remain at liberty in Serbia for two whole years, especially during the NATO "air campaign"? Did MAH walk around with a paper target on his head to blend in with his unsuspecting Serbian hosts? Or did he spend 78 sleepless days and nights peering nervously out of sewer gratings alongside comrades from the "anti-fascist" Otpor resistance? "Genocidal dictatorship” may sound sexy but I'm afraid the image is largely spoiled by MAH's effortless survival.
MAH, however, is more polished than your run-of-the-mill professional anti-Serb. A significant portion of his “scholarship” is aimed at promoting the moral equivalence between Serbian and Croatian atrocities during the Second World War.
Ordinarily this would be a tough sell given the hundreds of thousands of Serbs who died at the hands of the Ustashe in Jasenovac and elsewhere in the NDH. But MAH has a trump card up his sleeve – the insinuation of Serbian anti-semitism. The traditional WWII Balkan narrative which recognises the unspeakable atrocities against the Serbs is fundamentally flawed, says MAH, because it downplays the fate of a far smaller number of Jews who perished not only under the NDH but also at the hands of the collaborationist Nedic regime in Serbia:
http://www.southslavjournal.com/mah.html
By centering the Balkan genocide debate on the primacy of Jewish suffering, MAH cleverly yanks the spotlight away from Croatian collaboration. The biggest victims are put on trial and the precise number of Serbs massacred by a regime whose brutality shocked even the Nazis fades into academic irrelevance. So does the inconvenient fact that Germans built and ran the camps on Serbian soil whereas Jasenovac and sister camps were created by enthusiastic Croats:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/Almuli.html
MAH brushes all of this Equivalence Jamboree party-pooping aside and asserts that the Serbs were “never simply defenseless victims”. Serbian suffering, like Armenian suffering, is always somehow tainted. Unlike Jewish suffering, it can never be recognized in its own right. The fact that many Serbs fought back against their fate under the NDH is held against them. What a pity they didn’t meekly accept annihilation. Just imagine how Hollywood and MAH might have honoured them!!!
(Note, however, that "moral equivalence" is taboo in discussions of more recent Balkan bloodshed. Here there is one clear victim (the Muslims) and one clear perpetrator (the Serbs). The mere rumour of a Muslim death is sufficient to provoke howls of anti-Serbian rage in the op-ed columns of the NYT and the Washington Post.)
Unsurprisingly, MAH champions the “liberation of Iraq”. I suspect this dates back to the period when Slobodan Milosevic was Saddam Hussein and vice-versa, another magical piece of mainstream journalistic equivalence that conjured up the mythical beast Slobosaddam. According to legend, the wounded creature fled to Baghdad where it was finally captured and slain. But although this "liberation" fairy-tale imploded long ago, MAH remains adamant that the whole thing was a superb idea.
Critics are fed a foul stew of euphemisms, bogus analogies and pseudo-apologies. For instance, Abu Ghraib is conveniently dismissed as an “error” as though it were a friendly-fire incident and not the carefully planned and US-government approved application of Israeli torture techniques. The Americans, of course, bear no blame for four years of unstoppable sectarian killings that, in retrospect, have made Saddam look like an unappreciated humanitarian.
Moreover, MAH thinks that Weapons of Mass Destruction (as in biological weapons etc). should never have been the main rationale for the invasion, not because there were no WMDs but because even a machete qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction, as we saw in Rwanda. Is this a plea for an international ban on machetes (and what about bread knives)? Or a case for invading other machete-wielding nations and regions (eg. The Democratic Republic of Congo, the Amazon, Bermuda)? Or perhaps a call to think twice before launching the next war of aggression?
The correct answer is none of the above. MAH is simply offering advice on how to spin future illegal and immoral invasions. The case for war against Iraq, it seems, should have been based entirely on stale and discredited “humanitarian principles”.
Genocide, tyranny, dictatorship, liberation. It’s unquestionably exciting times for sleepy Surbiton, new outpost of the militant liberal international revolution.
Return of the Dead-Enders
I just read this:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/22259.html
After a moment's reflection, it dawned on me: the Dead-Enders are back!!
Remember the Dead-Enders? No, not the clique that is running and ruining the United States.
The Dead-Enders, if you recall, was Dick Cheney’s way of belittling the Iraqi resistance during the early days of the American occupation. The Dead-Enders were “remnants” of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist army who, we were assured, would be “mopped up” within weeks.
Well not only did we fail to mop them up, they are thriving like mice in the pantry. But the good news is that they are on our side, or at least for now which is why we no longer refer to them as Dead-Enders.
The so-called “surge”, you see, is merely a cover story for a much more profound shift in American policy. The Americans have finally realized that they will never woo the Shiites away from Iran. With the key support of an anti-Shiite alliance (Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt), America has been making overtures to the Sunni tribesmen and ex-Baath party officials who only months ago were organising and planting IEDs with devastating effect.
It sounds risky but a quick overview of several inter-twined scenarios and rationales shed light on the new American eagerness to establish a Sunni proxy army. These include:
1) An American attack on Iran. Sunni troops can be thrown into battle against Shiites in the event of Iranian/Shiite retaliation against “coalition” troops in Iraq.
2) A decision to carve up Iraq into sectarian “thirds”.The Sunni statelet will need a standing army to defend its sovereignty and the economic and political interests of its foreign sponsors.
3) Baghdad drifts completely into Tehran's orbit. With a bit of hard training and discipline, the most promising Dead-Enders will be re-molded into the praetorian guard of a revolutionary council that will swing into action and topple the central government.
Stories of how we are "defeating al-Qaeda", “reducing violence”, “keeping Iraq from falling apart”, and “winning hearts and mind” are for the ignorant masses high on FoxNews and CNN. This is the last gambit to stave off a total defeat at the hands of Iran.
And how long will this marriage of convenience last? 3 months? 6 months? A year? Does anyone really believe that all is forgiven after 4 years of savage occupation?
I wonder if George Bush can hear Saddam's bones rattling with laughter.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/22259.html
After a moment's reflection, it dawned on me: the Dead-Enders are back!!
Remember the Dead-Enders? No, not the clique that is running and ruining the United States.
The Dead-Enders, if you recall, was Dick Cheney’s way of belittling the Iraqi resistance during the early days of the American occupation. The Dead-Enders were “remnants” of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist army who, we were assured, would be “mopped up” within weeks.
Well not only did we fail to mop them up, they are thriving like mice in the pantry. But the good news is that they are on our side, or at least for now which is why we no longer refer to them as Dead-Enders.
The so-called “surge”, you see, is merely a cover story for a much more profound shift in American policy. The Americans have finally realized that they will never woo the Shiites away from Iran. With the key support of an anti-Shiite alliance (Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt), America has been making overtures to the Sunni tribesmen and ex-Baath party officials who only months ago were organising and planting IEDs with devastating effect.
It sounds risky but a quick overview of several inter-twined scenarios and rationales shed light on the new American eagerness to establish a Sunni proxy army. These include:
1) An American attack on Iran. Sunni troops can be thrown into battle against Shiites in the event of Iranian/Shiite retaliation against “coalition” troops in Iraq.
2) A decision to carve up Iraq into sectarian “thirds”.The Sunni statelet will need a standing army to defend its sovereignty and the economic and political interests of its foreign sponsors.
3) Baghdad drifts completely into Tehran's orbit. With a bit of hard training and discipline, the most promising Dead-Enders will be re-molded into the praetorian guard of a revolutionary council that will swing into action and topple the central government.
Stories of how we are "defeating al-Qaeda", “reducing violence”, “keeping Iraq from falling apart”, and “winning hearts and mind” are for the ignorant masses high on FoxNews and CNN. This is the last gambit to stave off a total defeat at the hands of Iran.
And how long will this marriage of convenience last? 3 months? 6 months? A year? Does anyone really believe that all is forgiven after 4 years of savage occupation?
I wonder if George Bush can hear Saddam's bones rattling with laughter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)