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.
