Of course Washington and Belgrade have different views on
whether or not Kosovo should have its own army. Serbia is but one of many
nations that have refused to recognise the 2008 Washington created Pristina
regime. Though the Western public has moved on, not everyone accepts the
results of NATO's wars against the Serbs.
For the Serbian people, Kosovo is deeply rooted in their
history. Previously I have compared the partition of Kosovo from Serbia to
Virginia losing the Shenandoah. This of course only begins to explain the level
of profound historical attachment. For Virginians, the visceral affection and
bond to the valley is wed to the Civil War of 150 years ago. For the Serbs,
Kosovo is the site of their great defeat in 1389, when their kingdom fell to
the invading Ottoman Turks. It became one of their primary symbols of identity
and emotional resistance.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914 on the anniversary
of the battle. In 1987 on the 598th anniversary of the battle,
Slobodan Milosevic promised that the Serbs would not suffer such a defeat
again. He spoke from the battlefield itself and promised the Serbs victory and
security. This was under the backdrop of a Yugoslavia already beginning to
crumble. Milosevic was the president of Serbia, at the time an entity within
federated Yugoslavia.
In 1989 on the 600th anniversary of the battle and
once again from the battlefield, Milosevic said:
"None should be
surprised that Serbia raised its head because of Kosovo this summer. Kosovo is
the pure centre of its history, culture and memory. Every nation has one love
that warms its heart. For Serbia it is Kosovo."
and
"Six centuries ago,
Serbia heroically defended itself in the field of Kosovo, but it also defended
Europe. Serbia was at that time the bastion that defended the European culture,
religion, and European society in general."
Whether one agrees with Milosevic's sentiments or his
historical interpretations is beside the point. It is noteworthy that to the
Serbs, the NATO war against them was yet another case of Latin treachery and betrayal
of the Byzantines. The Latin West stood with Kosovar Albanians who are Muslim
in order to defeat Byzantine culture and irredentism. And worse, the Latin West
partitioned what for them was and is Holy Kosovo.
One must understand that to the Serbs, this crime was their
equivalent of the Fourth Crusade's betrayal and sack of Constantinople. If you
understand what that meant to the Byzantines and Greeks, only then can you hope
to understand what the Kosovo War means to the Serbs. As the Byzantines cursed
Enrico Dandalo, so the Serbs curse Bill Clinton.
It must be understood the Serbs will never give up the dream
of Kosovo. It's not possible. If you understand the way history and memory work
in Eastern Europe and especially the Balkans you will begin to grasp this.
Right or wrong, they (and the Orthodox especially) do not have a progressive
concept of history. Such Westernisms are undoubtedly creeping in and yet they
are far from permeating society and collective thought. Historical grievance
can survive for generations and centuries. The conflicts and lingering
bitterness of Middle Age defeats lived on and were easily revived in the 19th
and 20th centuries. The Cold War put things on hold for a couple of
generations only to be quickly rekindled in the 1990's.
At this point, many of the Serbs want to move on. The turmoil
of the 1990's weighs heavily. But that's just war weariness. The dream is by no
means dead and all it takes is a generation or two and all the feelings can
come flooding back.*
What is the 'Serbian
Strategy Regarding Kosovo' if we can even speak of such a thing? It is but
a distant hope, a whisper on the wind, a dream that will not die.
At this point there isn't a lot of hope but what hope there
is rests on a simple premise.
If the European Union (EU) blows up and fragments... move
quickly and take Kosovo back. In terms of a larger series of questions, this
strategy would also apply to Serb interests within Bosnia. Some have called for
diplomatic solutions but they are clearly futile.
In fact the simmering Serb anger and its occasional vocalisation
in the form of sabre-rattling or even the hint that there are still Serbs
thinking about 'rolling back the clock' gives the United States a pretext for
'protecting' Kosovo from such a calamity. By means of this calculus,
Washington's interference seems reasonable and a case of prudent and
preventative security.
The United States has many agents and proxies at work within
the European framework, not least of which is NATO. But Kosovo represents a
special almost 'side' project within the Balkan sphere. For the past decade or
so no one in the West has paid much attention but with the campaign against
Russia and the increasingly volatile relationship with Turkey, the Balkans are emerging
once more as a centre of geopolitical tension and starting to garner more
attention.
Kosovo serves as an American proxy. If the European Union
were to implode or collapse, Washington knows Pristina will remain a solid
ally.
If it is just the Balkans that blow up, regardless of
Brussels position on the matter, the US knows it has an ally in Pristina.
Kosovo is also being used as a frontline state in the US
campaign against Russia. The US has a strategic base located in Kosovo which
also functioned (and perhaps still functions) as a Black Site, a secret prison
and torture centre.
Kosovo stands as a line in the sand to defy Russia and serves
as a staging ground and hub for further Balkan operations. There is much afoot
in neighbouring countries like Macedonia and many are closely watching
Bulgarian and Greek politics.
It's understood that a strong NATO protected Kosovo will keep
Serbia divided between nationalist factions and what might described as peace/European
factions, in other words those that want to move on and integrate with Europe. A
weak Kosovo will surely stoke Serbian dreams and foment nationalism and so the
US will do all it can to bolster Pristina. Establishing an independent army is
a basic and logical step Washington can take to strengthen what is otherwise a
fairly weak country. It will anger many Serbs but in some ways, the US can
benefit from this ire as well, if it plays its card right. It is the Kosovars
who are in the immediate line of fire, but the US has never 'cared' about its
allies. The ties aren't emotional but strategic. One could also argue that the
creation of an army in Kosovo will allow some Serbs to move on and realise any
dreams of reconquest are but pie-in-the-sky.
A Kosovo army will also afford the US greater opportunities
to expand its footprint in the Balkans. There will be training projects and
joint operations with the militaries of neighbouring countries. The defense
contractors and investment bankers will come in. They're already there of
course, but this will open up new doors. The already deep roots established by
Washington will be all but set in stone, backed up by institutional ties, debt
and threat.
There are lessons to be gleaned from such politicking.
Yugoslavia was certainly doomed from the start. It was born of ugly imperial
grasping and the break-up of empires. Birthed in the wake of WWI, it was forged
as a means to unify small weak states and stave off the vultures that
surrounded them. It tried to contain the evils of nationalism and irredentism.
Yugoslavia hoped to remain neutral and exempt itself from outside interference
but it was quickly pulled into WWII. It fractured and became a scene of
tremendous violence which stokes the fires of bitterness even today. After the
war, under the leadership of Tito it pursued an independent course that angered
Moscow and dissatisfied the West. And yet the West certainly supported Tito, an
exercise in Realpolitik designed to ensure the Balkan federation did not once
more fall into the hands of Stalin and his successors. The Iron Curtain sat
astride the Yugoslav borders with Austria, Italy and Greece but it was never of
the same character as elsewhere. It was never part of the Warsaw Pact.
Its creation set historical questions on the back-burner and
during this period other problems arose and in some cases were used to suppress
nationalism. Kosovo was flooded with Albanian migrants, today's Kosovars. They
had been there before but during the 20th century became the
majority of the population. These demographic figures are a continuing source
of dispute. What could be done? Should Kosovo be partitioned to reflect the
demographic realities? How can democracy work otherwise? There was no viable
hope of trans-ethnic consensus. Should there be a population exchange between
Serb and Albanian sectors along the lines of what happened between Greece and
Turkey in the 1920's?
These questions didn't really matter while Yugoslavia was in
existence. It's break-up in the early 1990's unleashed these forces which had
been contained since the end of World War II.
What about reparations? Will any group ever possibly be
satisfied? Should portions of the Balkans be carved out and handed over to some
kind of UN administration? No one apart from a small diplomatic class wants the
UN to directly administer anything. Though many American Rightists fear the UN
and criticise it as harmful to American interests the truth is the organisation
is impotent and virtually no one supports the idea of granting it real and
actual governance.
What if a Federated Yugoslavia was reconstituted? It could
employ a political arrangement along the lines of Lebanon with strict
requirements for each section of government that mandates representation from
the various ethnic groups. Ironically there were even Slavophiles in the 19th
century that defended the Habsburg Empire. They wanted reform to be sure but
they also understood that the complicated history and demography of Central and
Eastern Europe was a recipe for war. The Habsburgs for all their faults helped
to contain these forces... forces which exploded during the world wars.
Yugoslavia was something of a Balkan attempt to create this
same kind of federated unity, minus Teutonic governance. What if it was
reconstituted and constitutionally neutral? It would not be able to join in any
political bloc including NATO and the EU.
It will never happen because in reality the Western powers
are more than willing to risk war than to lose their hold and influence.
And war they shall have. Whether tomorrow or in a generation
it's already on the horizon. Like an edifice on a distant mountain, one can
make it out but its distance is hard to gauge.
See also:
*As an aside this is at the heart of the arguments for and
against public education. Those who wish to 'move on' from the confines of
history argue compulsory public education is necessary to break with the past
and the endless cycles of repetition and traditional thinking. It's only by
changing the way the younger generation thinks can the ties be broken and in
the case of the Byzantine Balkans and certainly with reference to Asiatics,
only then can Western democratic and liberal values take hold.
Conversely, this is why some would argue that compulsory
public education in such contexts is pernicious because it seeks to eradicate
tradition. It is in a cultural sense, genocidal. While it doesn't seek to
eliminate a population it seeks to destroy their identity, collective memory,
ideology and heritage.
And yet hypocritically these same targeted elements are all
too eager to employ compulsory public education to their ends and use it as a
means to indoctrinate the next generation. There is an ongoing battle over
children, something large numbers of Christians have even in 2018, failed to
grasp.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.