Croatia must defend Bosnia. So should Serbia…

Outgoing Croatian president Stjepan Mesic earlier this month threatened to intervene militarily in the event that Bosnia’s Serb entity, Republika Srpska, attempts to secede and establish itself as an independent state. He was responding to repeated separatist noises on the part of the Republika Srpska’s aggressively nationalistic prime minister, Milorad Dodik, who makes no secret of his hostility to the state of Bosnia-Hercegovina and his designs against its territorial integrity, and whose atrocity denial and friendship for convicted war-criminals indicate a dangerous contempt for the norms of civilised behaviour. Mesic has warned that if Dodik announces a referendum on secession – as the first step toward the Republika Srpska’s unification with Serbia to form a ‘Great Serbia’ – he would send the Croatian Army south across the River Sava to cut in half the Bosnian Serb entity, which ‘would then have to disappear’. Yet the establishment of a Great Serbia is not the only danger about which Mesic has warned. He has highlighted also the possibility that, with Republika Srpska seceding and the Bosnian Croats following suit, it would leave behind an embittered Muslim rump-state, that ‘would find itself in a hostile surrounding, and would be able sustain itself only with the help of a fundamentalist regime.’ Consequently, ’In the next 50 to 70 years there would be a new center of terrorism. It would be a new Palestine in the heart of Europe.’

German Ambassador to Sarajevo Joachim Schmidt is reported to have said that Mesic’s military threat ‘is not of help’. Yet it would not be left to Bosnia’s western neighbour to issue such a threat if the EU and US had not shown themselves to be quite so complacent in the face of Bosnia’s threatened collapse. Bosnia was lumbered with the unworkable and unsustainable Dayton settlement that ended its war in 1995. To sustain this unsustainable settlement, to make the unworkable work, required a powerful High Representative wielding authoritarian powers, backed up by a large international military presence. The Dayton system enjoyed its golden years in 2002-2006, when the Office of the High Representative (OHR) was held by the energetic Paddy Ashdown, and Bosnia superficially appeared to be making genuine strides towards reintegration. Yet the EU, naively believing that the farcical Dayton constitutional order could actually be made to function without massive outside interference, has since been rushing to wind down the OHR, and has withdrawn its support from Ashdown’s successors. With few international troops now remaining, the OHR has been left as a paper tiger, something that Dodik has taken advantage of to pursue his secessionist policy. It is as if a zoo-keeper had decided that, since his caged tiger had not eaten many people recently, it was now tame and could safely be let out of the cage, not realising that it was only because of the cage that the tiger appeared to be safe.

With the EU and US blithely fiddling while Bosnia burns, it has been left to the Croatian president to behave like a responsible European statesman, and make clear that the destruction of the international order in the Balkans will not be tolerated. Those condemning Mesic forget that his policy toward Bosnia is the exact opposite of that pursued by his predecessor, the chauvinistic tyrant Franjo Tudjman. Where Mesic defends a unified Bosnia, Tudjman joined with Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in attempting to destroy Bosnia and crush the Bosnian Muslims. And that is really the choice that Europe has, so far as Croatia is concerned: between a Croatia that upholds Bosnia, a la Mesic, and a Croatia that undermines Bosnia, a la Tudjman. It does not take a genius to realise that a Mesicite Croatia is preferable to a Tudjmanite Croatia.

Under Tudjman, Croatia was a corrupt and despotic state that sheltered war criminals, persecuted national minorities and undermined the territorial integrity of its Bosnian neighbour. The Tudjman regime represented a synthesis between the authoritarianism of the Croatian Communist ancien regime - whose child Tudjman himself was - and right-wing Croat emigre nationalism, combining the worst features of both. Yet since Tudjman’s death in 1999 and the electoral defeat of his Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) in 2000, Croatia appears definitely to have made the transition to becoming a democratic European state. Both Ivica Racan’s Social Democratic government, which took power in 2000, and the government of Ivo Sanader, who reconstituted the HDZ as a mainstream conservative party and took power in 2003, have guided Croatia down the democratic European path. Over them presided President Mesic, a reformed nationalist who honourably broke with Tudjman as early as 1994 over the latter’s Bosnian policy. These politicians redeemed Croatia in the 2000s from the disgrace brought upon it by Tudjman in the 1990s: they turned their back on anti-Bosnian Croat irredentism; refrained from pandering to neo-Ustasha sentiment; cooperated with the war-crimes tribunal in the Hague; put on trial war-criminals who persecuted Serb civilians in the 1990s; recognised the independence of Kosovo; and have brought Croatia into NATO and up to the gates of the EU. Croatia’s citizens should be as proud of their rulers’ record in the 2000s as they should be ashamed of their predecessors’ record in the 1990s. Of course, Croatia still faces huge problems of corruption and organised crime, but measured against where it would be now if Tudjman’s policies had been continued into the 2000s, the achievement is monumental.

With the election victory of the Social Democrat Ivo Josipovic in this month’s Croatian presidential election, Croatia has reaffirmed its democratic European path. His opponent in the presidential election, Milan Bandic, was a vulgar and corrupt populist who enjoyed the support of the nationalist emigration, of the better part of the clergy and of war-criminals such as Branimir Glavas and Tomislav Mercep. Bandic waged a red-baiting campagin directed against the Social Democrats on account of their Communist past – despite the fact that he too had been a member of the Communist party. Had he won the election, he would have become a Croatian Berlusconi. Yet Josipovic, a composer and law professor, crushed Bandic, winning 60.26% of the vote. Zivjela Hrvatska !

Josipovic is a civilised, non-nationalist individual who will serve to consolidate Croatia’s democratic transition and guard against any resurgence of Tudjman-style chauvinism. Yet there are indications that he lacks Mesic’s toughness. He has spoken of the possibility of withdrawing Croatia’s lawsuit against Serbia at the International Court of Justice; this would be an error, for although Croatia is unlikely to win the case, the verdict is highly likely to recognise Serbian war-crimes in Croatia in 1991-92, as it did in its judgement on Bosnia’s case against Serbia, when it recognised that ‘it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings in specific areas and detention camps throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict’ and that ‘the victims were in large majority members of the protected group [the Muslims], which suggests that they may have been systematically targeted by the killings’, and that ‘it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps.’ Croatia can reasonably hope for a similar recognition of its people’s suffering in the early 1990s.

Josipovic has also distanced himself from Mesic’s threat to intervene militarily to prevent the Republika Srpska’s secession, saying ‘sending the Croatian Army to a neighbouring country for me is not an option’ and ‘problems must always be solved through negotiations and with the agreement of all interested parties’. The pacific sentiment is commendable; the naivete less so. The Western alliance, given its past record, cannot be relied upon to take action to prevent the Republika Srpska’s secession; if it does not, and if Croatia does not either, then one of two things might happen. The Bosniaks might be stupid enough not to respond militarily, on the grounds that ‘problems must always be solved through negotiations and with the agreement of all interested parties’, in which case Republika Srpska will become independent at the price of some token concessions to the Bosniaks. Or the Bosniaks might take military action alone, in which case the consequences cannot be predicted, but are unlikely to be good.

It is worth stating again the case against allowing Republika Srpska to secede: it would represent a violation of the right to self-determination of the nearly 50% of the territory’s population that was Bosniak and Croat before 1992, that was mostly ethnically cleansed during the war and that has not been able to return since Dayton; the quid pro quo for international recognition of the Republika Srpska’s existence, with a massively disproportionate share of Bosnia’s territory, was the Serb recognition of Bosnia’s unity and indivisibility, and if the Serbs cease to recognise Bosnian unity then nobody is under any obligation to recognise the Republika Srpska’s existence any longer; the secession of Republika Srpska and its eventual unification with Serbia would derail Serbia’s own democratisation, and send it back down the path of expansionism and regional troublemaking; if Bosnia is allowed to break up, it will create a precedent for the break up of Macedonia and the secession of the Macedonian Albanians to unite with Albania and form a Great Albania, with all the dangers that would bring; and finally, the elements responsible for the bloodbath of the 1990s must never be rewarded. For all these reasons, Republika Srpska should not be allowed to secede. It is for the Bosnian citizenry as a whole to decide whether Bosnia should be divided into separate Serb, Croat and Bosniak states or whether it should remain united as a single state; it is not for either of the Bosnian entities to decide this unilaterally.

A threat, such as Mesic’s, makes a war in the region less rather than more likely, since so long as it is plausible, it will serve to deter an act of secession that would at the very least greatly destabilise the Balkans, and that would most likely spark a new Serb-Bosniak war. Dodik may be ready to pursue a secessionist policy that will result in war if he only has to fight the Bosniaks; he will be much less likely to do so if he has to fight Croatia as well, because he would inevitably lose. Those, such as Germany’s Ambassador Schmidt, who would like to deter Croatia from promising to defend Bosnia militarily if necessary, are contributing to the likelihood of war in the Balkans. Rather than praising him for not doing so, we should do well to encourage Josipovic to adopt Mesic’s policy.

We have spoken of Croatia’s tremendous achievement in turning its back on the politics of the late Franjo Tudjman. Serbia, too, has made tremendous strides in its democratic transition, particularly since the victory of the pro-European parties in Serbia’s 2008 parliamentary elections. Serbia has become a fully democratic state, embraced the European path and put war-criminals on trial, and however misguided its attempt to retain Kosova might be, it is at least using judicial means that are within its rights. But in one respect in particular Serbia scores much lower than Croatia: it has not abandoned its nationalist paradigm vis-a-vis Bosnia. Whereas official Croatia today sees Bosnian unity as its national interest and refrains from promoting Bosnian Croat separatism, official Serbia continues to see its interest in undermining Bosnia and promoting the separateness of the Republika Srpska.

The day when Serbia sees its national interest as defending Bosnia’s unity and integrity from enemies such as Dodik, is the day when post-nationalist Serbia will truly have arrived.

This article was published today on the website of the Henry Jackson Society.

Ten things I’d like to see more of in the 2010s

 

1) Elitism

The use of ‘middle class’ as a term of abuse and ‘working class’ as a term of praise was always extremely annoying, even when it was on the part of people arguing for social justice. It has become doubly objectionable now that every other racist or fascist invariably claims to be speaking on behalf of the ‘working class’ when he or she rails against the ‘liberal elite’, Muslims, immigrants etc. When used in this context, ‘working class’ does not actually mean people who work in steel mills or down mines and have surplus value extracted from their labour, etc. No, ‘working class’ is used by the BNP and their kind as a euphemism for the elements of our society that celebrate ignorance, xenophobia, vulgarity and prejudice. Sometimes, they give the game away by using the term ‘white working-class’, which is short-hand for not very sophisticated white people – irrespective of actual socio-economic background – who don’t want too many foreigners with dark skins or funny accents coming over to their country.

When fascists and racists denounce the ‘liberal elite’ in the name of the ‘working class’ or ‘white working-class’, what they really mean is that being educated and cosmopolitan corrupts while being less educated and more narrow-minded results in greater political wisdom. They want politicians to listen to the least educated and most prejudiced amongst us. They are anti-intellectual philistines who hate books, libraries, teachers, students and universities. They want xenophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia and religious bigotry to be acceptable again.

Via Edmund Standing at Harry’s Place, I also learn that the BNP’s legal director Lee John Barnes has written a poem that contains verses like the following:

Fuck your liberty,
It is just a lie,
For the eternal conflict,
Between equality,
And the ideal of liberty,
Reveals the truth,
Your liberty is the same,
Old whore in a new dress,
Whose cunt is still wet,
From serving the pigs
That ran the old regime.
That ran the old regime.

Barnes claims: ‘The swear words in the poem are designed to produce a ‘bourgeoise’ reflex in the reader.’ Indeed, the belief that disgusting, abusive language is somehow ‘working class’ is, in fact, common to many of the troglodytes that inhabit cyberspace.

To which one can only reply that elitism is a truly wonderful phenomenon; long may it prosper.

2) Mass immigration.

It has been said that the reason liberal elitists support mass immigration is that it lowers the cost of baby-sitters, hedge-trimmers, dog-walkers and others providers of services to the middle classes. Well, I don’t have a baby, a hedge or a dog, but I’m all in favour of cheaper services for the middle classes – why should I pay a British plumber some exorbitant fee if a Polish plumber will do the job for less ? And it’s so nice for me and my middle-class friends to be able to go out in London to interesting ‘ethnic’ restaurants – my favourite is Adulis Eritrean Restaurant, on Brixton Road. It seems to me that the death of so-called ‘white working-class culture’ (i.e. the culture of all-white provincial backwaters that are still living in the 1940s) is a small price to pay for all these benefits.

Sorry, Alf Garnett, but as a middle-class person, I believe that mass immigration is in my class interest. It’s also in my country’s national interest: the US did not grow from a country with a population of under three million at the time of independence to become the world’s richest and most powerful state by pursuing Daily-Mail-style immigration policies.

3) Minarets in Europe.

Go to any city or town in Europe, and it’s likely that a church or a mosque will be the most attractive piece of architecture. There are few buildings as pleasing as the Lisbon Cathedral, Durham Cathedral, the Cordoba Great Mosque, the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne or the Hagia Sophia. Well, in the UK and other parts of Europe we thankfully have plenty of lovely churches and cathedrals, but it would be nicer to have more mosques and more minarets. However, I don’t expect this to be appreciated by the sort of barbarians who recently won the referendum in Switzerland, and who are clearly still living in round about the eleventh century.

It’s time to stop the Islamophobification of Europe. Too see the sort of lunacy the new Islamophobic fascist groups go in for, have a look at the website of the SIOE, which wants us to boycott countries like Albania and Turkey on the grounds that they are Muslim, as well as companies like Nestle and Asda that produce or sell halal food.

I’m an atheist, but I find fairy tales about the fellow who lives in the sky and has a big white beard and wears sandals a lot less inherently offensive than fairy tales about how our ordinary Muslim sisters and brothers represent some sort of threat to European civilisation – this is simply the successor to the fairy tale of the interwar period, that our Jewish sisters and brothers were a threat to European civilisation because they were allegedly carriers of communism.

4) Nazi analogies.

Last year, I wrote that ‘Hitler analogies are very tired’. I was wrong. Hitler and Nazi analogies are not tired.

World War II was the greatest struggle of the last two-hundred years. It has defined the political consciousness of the contemporary world. ‘Hitler’ and ‘Nazi’ have become bywords for the absolute worst form of evil. It is inevitable that people today see world politics in part through the prism of this great struggle. It is entirely reasonable that contemporary movements or regimes that engage in totalitarian, racist or genocidal activities should remind us of the Nazis, and that we should point this out when they do. Frankly, I’m getting fed up with people complaining about the over-use of Nazi analogies; they seem to want us to disown our own anti-fascist heritage and treat totalitarian, racist and fascist regimes and movements with respect that they do not deserve. Much better to call a spade a spade. It  is often an exaggeration to label such regimes or movements ‘Nazi’, but it’s better to exaggerate than to treat them with kid gloves.

5) Use of the term ‘racist’.

From the days when I used to fight it out with BNP supporters and other bigots and troglodytes in the comments boxes of Harry’s Place, I learned that such people find the term ‘racist’ offensive in the same way that normal, civilised people find words like ‘cunt’ and ‘wanker’ offensive. This is because they usually really are racists and would like to be able to say things like ‘immigration is destroying indigenous British culture’ without being called ‘racist’. Furthermore, they hate the term ‘racist’ because they hate liberals and liberal values in general.

Members of the Decent Left despise liberals when they fail to uphold liberal values vis-a-vis fascists and racists. By contrast, fascists and racists despise liberals when they do uphold liberal values. The term ‘racist’ is an affront for them because it signifies support for the liberal values that they hate.

We should never allow ourselves to be intimidated by the racists and fascists; we should call them ‘racist’ each and every time they spew their poison.

Ditto use of the term ‘anti-Semite’.

Ditto use of the term ‘Islamophobe’.

6) Violations of national sovereignty.

When scratching around for justification for their belief that the perpetrators of genocide and other massive human-rights abuses should be free to do so without outside interference, supporters of dictatorship here in the democratic West will invariably bring up the supposed principle of ‘national sovereignty’. By this, they mean the sovereign right of dictators to carry out genocide and other crimes against their own or neighbouring peoples. They do not mean the actual sovereignty of nations. Thus, in the case of the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, the alleged supporters of ‘national sovereignty’ did not support the national sovereignty of Slovenians, Croatians or Bosnians, never mind Kosovars. They did, however, support the sovereign right of Milosevic’s dictatorship to exterminate Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovars without interference from the democratic West. Subsequently, many of the same people came out in support of the sovereignty of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist dictatorship vis-a-vis the allied coalition, but not of the sovereignty of the Iraqi people to elect their own government.

So long as ‘national sovereignty’ is a euphemism for the right of tyrannies to abuse human rights, it should be violated as often as possible.

7) Newly independent states.

Opponents of the international recognition of Kosova’s independence often allege that it will encourage other secessionist movements worldwide. I wish that it were so, for the achievement of freedom by a previously unfree people is something to be celebrated. There are numerous peoples who deserve the right to independent statehood: Kurds, Palestinians, Chechens, Tibetans, Basques, Catalans, Tamils and many others. Not all of these can realistically achieve national independence, and some would be best advised not to push for it. But all have the right to it, if that is what they want, and if they are denied it but wish to struggle for it nonetheless, the sympathy of all right-thinking people is with them. I hope that, in the years to come, more unfree peoples succeed in seceding and forming their own independent states. Remember: if the Kosovars can achieve it, maybe you can too !

8 ) NATO and EU members.

I hope that within the next two decades, all the remaining states of Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and the Balkans, including and especially Turkey, become members of both the EU and NATO. One of the advantages of this is that it would really offend the regime in Moscow, which can only be a good thing. But I dream of living long enough to see our Euro-Atlantic structures expand to incorporate a free and democratic Russia and a free and democratic Iran. I dream to see them incorporate both Israel and a free and democratic Palestine, allied as closely and as naturally to one another as Germany and France are today.

9) The use of Britain’s libel laws to silence bloggers.

No doubt a blogger is now and again sued unjustly but successfully for libel, but for every one who is unjustly sued, several more deserve everything they get. For the opposite problem is far, far bigger today: the freedom that bloggers and commenters on blogs seem to feel they enjoy to libel other people with impunity. A blogger posts a vicious ad hominem attack on Joe Bloggs MP, then a lynch mob of despicable little anonymous cowards hiding behind ridiculous pseudonyms will sniggeringly post comments on a blog claiming that ‘Joe Bloggs MP is a criminal’, ‘Joe Bloggs MP is a paedophile’, etc. The blogger will refuse to delete them, then when Mr Bloggs sues the blogger, the blogger will whine about ‘freedom of speech’ and claim to be a human rights martyr like Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi.

I can think of few groups of people who are less worthy of solidarity than bloggers sued for libel by the people they have defamed. My solidarity, rather, goes to the libel lawyers who make an honest living protecting us, even if only slightly, from this scourge. Britain’s libel laws are a great institution; may they remain in force forever.

10) Rudeness towards the far left.

I am worried that members of the Decent Left are not being sufficiently rude or aggressive toward the far left. It is horrible to think that a political tendency that includes Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and the Socialist Workers Party; that uses ‘Zionist’ as a term of abuse; that supports the Islamofascists in the Middle East and the Chetniks in the Balkans; should ever be treated by us with anything that even remotely resembles gentleness or respect.

Come on comrades, we can do better than this. Let’s really, really go for them in 2010.

Happy New Year to all my readers. Except for the hostile ones.