I just wanted to add a couple of footnotes to comments by Jim D. and Barkely. Jim mentioned that he was not aware of any evidence that the US had initially wanted to breakup Yugoslavia. He should be aware that under Reagan, the American foreign service had developed a secret plan to destabilize Yugoslavia and sabotage the Yugoslav economy, all as part of its cold war strategy. Parts of that plan was declassified several years ago and I believe I saw that the whole document has recently declassified. In any case, I first saw it quoted in an article I believe by Sean Gervasi in Z magazine or in a publication of Ramsey Clark's international affairs institute written by Sara Flowers (or in both). It is true that, initially, the US opposed the secession of Slovenia and Croatia. The question is why? One interpretation that seems plausible to me is that the secession of Slovenia and Croatia was being pushed and financed by Germany and the US wanted time to get in to extend its influence before this part of Yugoslavia was incorporated into the German sphere of influence. In any case, US opposition was brief and very weak and Bosnia came along to give the US entry into the geopolitics of the area. It is in Bosnia that we see the real US hand. When the three ethnic groups came to the Lisbon agreement on the cantonization of Bosnia (on the Swiss model) before the war in Bosnia broke out, it was the US ambassador, Zimmerman, who torpedoed the deal by assuring Izabegovic that the US would support a unified Muslim state. This made civil war in Bosnia inevitable. That in turn, and German and US support for the Albanian separatists (including arms and money for mercenaries) made the current war in Kosovo inevitable. Barkley, you imply that I am a supporter (or at best an apologist) of Milosevic. I can assure you that I am no fan of his for reasons that long predate the current crisis, indeed predate the breakup of the Yugoslav Federation and even of the removal of Kosovo autonomy. I will not go into that because that is not relevant to the following discussion. When I was last in Belgrade just before the introduction of sanctions I was visiting with friends who were, most if not all, in opposition to Milosevic and on the non-nationalist liberal (but not necessarily left or progressive) side of the political spectrum. (i.e. some were economically neo-liberal in the Jean Chretian sense.) We had a long discussion about the current state of politics in Serbia. They all admitted that although there were three or four political parties on the liberal side, they were weak and disorganizaed, largely led by academics who were long on abstract ideas and philosophy but short on organization, policies, and political smarts and with little or no presence outside of urban intellectual circles. The real contention for power at that time were Milosevic, Seselj and Draskovic. Seselj and his Serbian Radical Party represented the ultra-nationalist right (one might go as far as to label them 'neo-fascist' though labelling at this time has become rather a fools game.) Draskovic had also risen to power on a ultra- nationalist ticket though this time tied to the Chetnik (King and Church) appeal. Milosevic allied with the old Communist party headed by his wife was able to win elections from a power base in the country where the large 'peasantry' wanted a strong leader -- a Serbian Tito. Next we see the urban elections where opposition coalitions of an anti-Milosevic bent are victorious. And who is a leader of this coalition? No other than Draskovic who alleges he his arrested and beaten by Milosevic's police. Then the most recent elections and who is the runner up to Milosevic's party? Seselj's radicals. Now that the war is on and the bombing starts, who is Milosevic's vice-president? None other than Seselj. And who is a chief spokesman for the Serbian and Milosevic cause. Our old fried Vuk Draskovic. What is the point of all this? I am merely making the argument that within the Yugoslav context, Milosevic is actually among the most moderate of the potential leadership and demonization of him is not only silly in this context, it is counterproductive in finding a solution to the situation. He is no more evil or dictatorial that Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. Reagan, in fact, was far more evil than Milosevic who, at worst, only oppressed people in his own country. Paul Phillips Economics University of Manitoba
