HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
Hey all, I'm doing a paper on the "recognition" of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Two things have struck me so far in my research: 1) the degree to which NATO's policy viz. Yugoslavia resembles the Bantustan approach adopted by the South African regime. In order to dilute opposition to its rule, Pretoria did not recognize a "black majority" but instead several "minorities" as having the right to their "own path to development", or "apartheid" on the basis that all peoples were different and deserved their own states. Pretoria only recognized "tribes" or "ethnies" some of which, according to official apartheid era propaganda "hated each other more than the whites." In order to divide and rule Pretoria recognized different levels of autonomy based on the "evolution" of different peoples, finally granting them "statehood" - which went unrecognized by the entire international community - once they were sufficiently "evolved" like in the cases of Transkei, Ciskei, and Bophatswanaland. In fact such acts of "recognition" it has been argued are jus cogens, or peremptory violation of international law as they violated the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples (who never voted for such "independence"). In the same way, Yugoslavia's peoples - but especially the Serbs, Croats, "Bosniaks," and Montenegrins who shared an identical linguage, i.e. the surest sign of common ethnic heritage - where united in a common state. In order for NATO to dominate it had to create ethnic partitions and recognize independent "homelands" which would effectively undercut opposition to its rule by preventing any one side from supporting the other. It is interesting to note that the secessionist leadership in both Slovenia and Croatia only won on referendums that argued for a restructured Yugoslavia as a loose federation and NOT complete dismemberement. Nonetheless, in violation of these referenda the republican leaderships moved to escalate the crisis each time a solution within a Yugoslav framework was within reach, thereby increasing the involvement of Federal organs and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and creating the oportunity to charge "Greater Serbian hegemonism." This polarized the population and prevented a solution within Yugoslavia (i.e. the intention of Slovenia and Croatia's foreign backers, particularly the USA, Germany and Britain). In fact during the escalation of the crisis in Spring 1991 Douglas Hurd met with Tudman in London and Bush sent a letter to Croatian VP Stipe Mesic arguing that a "peaceful" secession by Croatia and Slovenia would be supported. In May 1991, the United States cut off all aid to Yugoslavia citing "Serbian" actions in Kosovo and "Serbia's" destabilization fo the Federal Presidency (while completely ignoring the much more serious crimes of the HDZ regime in Croatia and Slovenia's complete boycott and hence destabilization of all Federal Organs, as well as the Federation as a whole). If the USA was moving to "preserve Yugoslavia" it was sure going about it the wrong way by lending support to secessionist and only denouncing those who sought to hold the country together. Such policies are of course behind the radical parcallation of land throughout the Balkans which has left Slovene, Croat, Bosnian Serbs, Croatian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, Macedonians and now even Montenegrins living in seperate "states" de facto or dejure. The only underlying commonality allowed between the various Bantustans, as in South Africa was: 1) the "right" to be exploited by the central administering power of the apartheid regime (, 2) the "right" to be economically dominated by the apartheid regimes corporate and financial interests, (3) the "privelege" of having critical infrastructure maintained by the white minority regime, and 3) the presence of the apartheid regimes security forces as the ultimate arbiter of the situation in the homelands (including specially trained local police forces to put down the native populations resistance and workers strikes). Any opposition that challenged this process of "seperate development" in South Africa, was quashed, leaders were imprisoned and tried for "terrorism" or "crimes against humanity" and where regularly branded as "communists", just as the Socialist Party of Serbia, the Alliance of Reform Forces, the League of Communists - Movement for Yugoslavia, the League of Communists of Montenegro, the League of Communists of Bosnia, the League of Communists of Macedonia - Movement for Democratic Renewal, etc. - all of which favored the preservation of a multiethnic Yugoslavia, and opposed the principle of violent ethnic partition - were marginalized and sidestepped by NATO, and their leadership demonized and destroyed. NATO has effectively pursued a radical policy of Bantustanization of Yugoslavia, which has continuously favored the most radical elements in the Balkan drama - espousing the most polarizing racial theories - under the cover of "democracy promotion" and "self-deteremination" and "integration into Europe", etc., etc., etc. The results have been a consolidation of NATO rule over the Balkans and the imposition of Western minority regimes wherever possible. The conclusion is that these states are illigitimate creations of NATO policy and not self-determining entitites. It should be noted that all of the FRONT LINE STATES - which were the African States that opposed South Africa's apartheid policy and that bordered it - were the most vociferous supporters of the position that the secessionist republics in Yugoslavia had seceded from the Federation and the the FRY was the sole legitimate inheritor of the SFRY. They were the biggest supporters of Yugoslavia's continued unity to the very end and even up to the NATO aggression and afterwards in 1999. This was a position that was shared by Russia, China, and India, as early as late 1992 when these questions were brought up to the UN General Assembly at the request of the Security Council. Thus the REAL apartheid in the Balkans is a direct result of NATO policy, which sustains an atitude favoring Yugoslavia's partition, not the policies of Yugoslavia and its allies. This applies to the Serbs as well who were described in a Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) - British version of NED basically - 1994 document entitled "Managing Milosevic's Serbia" in the following terms, which argued that the Belgrade-Pale split in 1993 "reveal[ed that] the Serbian nation is not so much one nation as a series of disparate, almost tribal communities linked by a common language, religion and mythology." The inherent racist assumptions of NATO's Balkan policies, I think, can be made more explicit if we emphasize the connections between NATO and apartheid. To call any of the "successor" states of Yugoslavia as "independent" or "self-determining" is a mockery of terminology: these states should instead be refered to as Non-self-Governing Territories and the mandated power NATO should be placed under the supervision of the UN Committtee on Decolonization as is the proper procedure for such territories. The "successor" states of Yugoslavia can only be rightfully called a rag-tag collection of ethnic "Bantustans" and "Homelands" under the thumb of NATO and Western capitalism in my opinion and deserve no legitimation by the international community until their full sovereignty has been restored (either in a UNION with each other or as seperate but TRULY SELF-DETERMINING STATES - whichever the citizens of these regions decide). What is needed, as in the South African case is a TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION between the indigenous peoples of the former Yugoslavia, and an International Criminal Tribunal for the crimes of the self-declared "international community" and NATO forces and governments that interfered in Yugoslavia to bring criminal accountability to those who sowed the seeds of destruction. 2) The whole notion of a GREATER SERBIA being supported by the government in BELGRADE is a BIG LIE as we all know. The facts are quite simple on this score. On April 2nd, 1991 the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia met in an EMERGENCY SESSION to respond to the action - one day before - of the Executive Council of Krajina to declare its secession from Croatia and its union with Serbia after the Croatian government adopted a series of constitutional provisions that effectively severed all links with Yugoslavia and as it continued its violent repression of the largely non-violent blockades set up by Croatian-Serbs. Serbia's parliament completely rejected the position of the Executive Council of Krajina and asked that a solution be found within a Yugoslav framework, respecting the integrity of Croatia so long as it still remained - a however recalcitrant - member of the federation. Thus SERBIA'S legislators - elected the previous December - EXPLICITLY REJECTED A "GREATER SERBIA" PROJECT. The only ones opposed to such measures were the pro-Western Chetnik opposition led by Vuk Draskovic who had demanded the previous October that a "declaration of war" be proclaimed on Croatia!!! Thus once again it was the rabidly pro-Western and anti-Milosevic forces in the "Serbian camp" that favored racist and polarizing policies for the Balkan peninsula and not anti-hegemonistic forces that rallied around the SPS and pro-Yugoslav parties. cheers! Kole --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
