Liars, Cowards and Heroes

Over the past couple of years, Julia Gorin has done more in-depth coverage of suffering in Kosovo than I have done since 1999. She has that rare quality for a journalist: the ability to research the story, connect the dots, and back her claims up with hard evidence. Most mainstream reporters, by contrast, rely on "unnamed diplomats" and "respected analysts" who are actually government spokesmen and paid propagandists for whichever cause is the Official Truth of the day.

Back in July, Julia published a piece in the American Legion magazine revealing that the "victory" in Kosovo was anything but. She was immediately attacked by two soldiers deployed in Kosovo, claiming she was a "liar" and a "predator" who made up things and impugned the Soldiers (always with a capital "S") who served their country and protected "our freedoms" - such as, ostensibly, Julia's freedom of speech.

Let's set aside for the moment the obviously ridiculous notion that occupying a portion of Serbian territory on behalf of Albanian separatists in any way shape or form defends anything American, whether rights, interests or principles. In practice, one has freedom of speech in the U.S. so long as their voice isn't heard by too many. If there is the slightest danger of a dissenting view "infecting" the carefully constructed mainstream, the dissident is exposed to onslaught of "respectable" critics and pro-establishment types, dismissed as a kook or a paid foreign agent, ridiculed as a liar or a fringe extremist, etc. This is exactly what happened when Julia published her critique of Croatia's Ustasha revival; death threats and invective came at her from all angles (publishing emails from angry Croats calling her a "filthy Jewish bitch" or saying "we didn't kill enough of you" was a brilliant response, though).

Just to make sure she means business, Julia has a link on her page to Bruiser, her rather fierce-looking canine companion. Seems as if taking a look at his photo has a salutary effect on those who threaten her bodily harm.

Following the attacks by the two military bloggers, Julia has composed an extensive response, which is carried by FrontPage Magazine. She carefully documents every one of her claims, debunks the bloggers' assertions methodically, and in general makes them look like clueless idiots at best, or pathetic mouthpieces of officialdom at worst.

How someone can sit in Camp Bondsteel, in occupied Kosovo, and claim they fight for liberty is completely beyond me. How can someone claim to fight for American freedoms, and then take part in enabling the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo, which is as un- and anti-American an endeavor as it gets? Or could this be the knee-jerk "patriotism" of some folk who believe that questioning the motives and intentions of the Imperial government while there are troops in harm's way (by the way, that harm is likely to come from the Albanians they are protecting; how's that for irony?) is treason? It seems they have forgotten that their oath was not to a Fuehrer but to the Constitution of a Republic.

There are times when I wonder whether I would care so much about what has taken place in the Balkans had I not lived through it, or if I would be so passionate about the injustices heaped upon the Serbian people if I were not an ethnic Serb. Julia Gorin is neither. She's an American, who could have profited handsomely parroting the official line about evil, genocidal Serbs. Instead, she chose to put everything on the line for the cause of truth and justice. That is true heroism. That is the American Way. And those who sneer at her while pretending to be American patriots ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Storm, Remembered

August 5 is a national holiday in Croatia, "Homeland Thanksgiving Day." Once again this year, Croatia's leaders gathered in Knin (formerly the capital of the rebel Serb Krajina region) to declare that Serbs are to blame for the war, and that their suffering was their own fault.

Right; when Croats, Muslims or Albanians leave their homes, it's always "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" but when Serbs do the same thing, it's their own fault. Anyone see a bit of problematic reasoning here?

Croatia is currently governed by the same party that declared independence in 1991, wrote the Serbs out of the Constitution and accepted Ustasha (WW2 Nazi) symbolism in mainstream political discourse. Tens of thousands - including diplomats with families, no less - recently saluted Ustasha songs at a big rock concert in Zagreb.

Facts speak for themselves, gentlemen; where once were hundreds of thousands of Serbs, now there are almost none. They've been killed, expelled, or forced to deny their identity so that within a generation they will be more ardent Croats than Franjo "Founder of the Nation" Tudjman. What happened in August 1995 was the largest single act of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans to date. Nobody cared, because it was "just those Serbs."

Just so we're perfectly clear: when the Empire engages in aggressive warfare (the greatest international crime) for the sake of "human rights," it is only the "rights" of its allies, satellites, quislings and clients. Serbs, being none of that, are not considered human. And if they dare offer resistance, then obviously whatever happens to them is their fault.

I won't bother pointing out whose "logic" this resembles.

The KLA, Itself

Andy Wilcoxson of Slobodan-Milosevic.org has compiled a list of official KLA communiques, ICTY transcripts and other official documents, illuminating the nature of this terrorist organization. For anyone who wants to understand what really took place in Kosovo (and not the "righteous NATO ended ethnic cleansing by bombing evil Serbs and brought peace and democracy" horse-hockey the public has been fed for 8+ years), this is a must-read.

A KLA propaganda poster

Watershed

When Boris Yeltsin died in April, I almost wrote about it. Instead, I figured I couldn't do a better job than Justin Raimondo and decided differently. But in the draft I had put together was a thesis that at the time seemed far-fetched: that the 1999 NATO attack on Yugoslavia was what a straw that broke the camel's back, and soured Russia on the rising American Empire. I now regret not publishing that, because it has just been corroborated - and by none other than the most famed Soviet dissident!

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in an interview to Germany's Der Spiegel, says this:

When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda. This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. [...] So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.

When Austria-Hungary threatened war with Serbia in 1914, Russia backed Belgrade. Not because it could handle a war at that point, or because such a course of action was in its best interest - arguably, neither was the case - but because in 1908 it had stood aside and allowed Vienna to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina in clear violation of the 1878 treaty that was supposed to create peace in the Balkans.

For modern Russia, 1999 was another 1908. They don't want another 1914. But the American Empire is acting like Austria-Hungary, even to the point of having an Austrian-born, Serbophobic U.S. ambassador in Belgrade...

Of course, the analogy only goes so far; even so, the Empire ought to realize that Moscow is really serious this time. As is Belgrade, custom-made polls notwithstanding. It is now clear that the 1999 war "lost Russia." Somehow, the worshipful embrace of Albanian peasants seems a bad bargain in comparison.

Finnished

Having witnessed the humiliating defeat of his proposal for an Albanian-dominated "Kosova" as a ward of the EU, former president of Finland and ICG board member Martti Ahtisaari told the Finnish Radio he would no longer be involved with Empire's land-grab from Serbia. He could contribute in an "advisory role," he told the media hopefully, but noted no one's asked him to do so.

The battle for Kosovo is far from over. Albanian separatists are still determined to have their way, and their allies - the governments in London, Paris and Washington - are just as determined to paint their 1999 war of aggression as a triumph of democratic peace. Turns out Serbia and Russia are just as determined not to let them, even though the Empire has constantly underestimated both. Maybe that's why it lost the staring contest at the UN.

Any which way things develop from here, the Finn is done. Finished. Now he just has to hope the Albanians won't ask for their money back, the same way they've been "asking" for land...

Questions You're Not Supposed to Ask

Readers often ask me about books that would help them get a better understanding of Balkans events, or libertarian thought. I eagerly direct them to writings about the latter, but sadly don't have much to recommend regarding the former. Today, however, I'm happy to do both.

Thomas E. Woods, a brilliant historian who has previously penned The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, has a new book out: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.

I haven't read it yet, though I have ordered a copy. So, why do I recommend it? Because reviewer Kevin Gutzman wrote today on LewRockwell.com that "the two chapters on American intervention in the former Yugoslavia are among the book’s finest."

I haven't the slightest doubt that Professor Woods has put together a fine piece of myth-busting work here. I can't wait to read it!

The Definite Article

For eight years now, I have been publishing commentaries about the Balkans on-line. In that course of time, I have received innumerable requests from readers for one written volume that would help them understand what took place in that corner of the world and why they should care (or not). Such a volume does not exist.

However, something very close to it has just been published. On July 4th, most fittingly, online magazine American Thinker published Julia Gorin's superb dissertation on the "Balkans Quagmire" in the minds of Western observers.

Rich in analysis, primary and secondary sources, unimpeachable logic and sincerity, this is one article anyone even remotely interested in the Balkans should read. Needs to read. If, some day, a collection of essays on the Balkans crisis of the past two decades is published, I hope that some of my works make it in there. But I know that this essay of Julia's will.

Read it. Go.

What are you waiting for?

380,032

I ran across an interesting interview in todays' online edition of Belgrade's Glas Javnosti. Professor Svetozar Livada, author of a book on ethnic cleansing in Croatia, dares raise a taboo topic:

Croatia had 1,107 towns with Serb majority, and I systematically compared the situation from the 1991 census with that of 2001. From this I established that in the majority of towns with Serb majority the infrastructure has been completely destroyed. Not only have people been expelled, their property was destroyed as well... I've noted the destruction of the entire infrastructure: emergency rooms, art houses, warehouses, power stations, cemeteries... Ethnic cleansing in Croatia encompassed people, property and even real estate registries.

I went further, statistically analyzing the two hundred-plus cities in Croatia, and established that some 124,000 Serbs were expelled from places where there was no fighting, and that the same destruction was applied to their property. There isn't a single village where someone hasn't been killed or disappeared. In larger cities there were concentration camps, euphemistically called "collection centers," and in many cases people died there.

Statistics show that 10,000 people were expelled from their homes in Split, and 18,500 from Zagreb. At the Zagreb fairgrounds, there was a concentration camp at "Pavillion 22." Everyone pretty much knew what went on there. Some 200 people disappeared. Still, the largest number of people were killed in Sisak.

Any mention of Balkans wars in the Western media includes numbers: 250,000 (the false, grossly inflated number of war deaths in Bosnia); 8000 (the purported number of Muslims slain in Srebrenica in 1995); 10,000 (the number of Albanians allegedly killed by Serb forces, "estimated" by NATO sources). There's one number that's never mentioned: 380,032.

The 2001 census listed 380,032 fewer Serbs in Croatia than in 1991. As Dr. Livada's research shows, that number was brought about by actions "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

Good Riddance

The outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Serbia, Michael Polt, has been a stereotypical Imperial envoy: ignorant, arrogant, abrasive, disdainful, boorish... He has even outdone his colleague, Germany's ambassador Andreas Zobel; for while Zobel has cleverly kept his trap shut after sticking both feet in it back in April, Polt has continued to use every public appearance to proclaim his government's support to the illegal separation of the occupied province of Kosovo.

It seems that the Serbian government has had quite enough of him, at long last. Prime Minister Kostunica's spokesman, Srdjan Djuric, has skewered Polt twice this week. The first comment came on Tuesday, after the Ambassador abused the event marking the 60th anniversary of the Marshall Plan to give yet another speech about the "need" for independent Kosovo.

The sneering Polt asked a rhetorical question during his tirade: "What if we were to tell you today that we were wrong and that Kosovo is yours, and that we are withdrawing our forces from Kosovo by Saturday. What then?"

Polt was obviously expecting the terrified Serbs to beg the Americans and other NATO troops to stay and continue their occupation, so even more Serbs could be ethnically cleansed, even more churches could be destroyed, and even more Albanians could illegally settle in the province. No such luck; instead, Djuric reacted by commending the ambassador on an "interesting new suggestion" that signaled American acceptance of Serbia's territorial integrity.

The departing ambassador walked into another blunder on Thursday, when he criticized Prime Minister Kostunica's remark that the U.S. and Serbia were locked in "a new battle for Kosovo." According to Polt, there is no battle; America is a friend of Serbia, and all the hostility is purely one-sided.

Djuric replied: "Friends don't seize one another's land... If this means the U.S. is abandoning its support for the independence of Kosovo... then we can talk about friendly relations between our countries. " He followed up by asking "whether [Mr. Polt's] country would consider Serbia a friend if Serbia were advocating the creation of a new state on American territory."

Of course, Polt was spewing nonsense on both occasions. Washington doesn't have friends - only servants and victims. And the U.S. can no sooner withdraw from Kosovo than it could from Iraq - even though in both cases withdrawal would be the right thing to do. But this is the first time someone in the Serbian government (even if only a spokesman) openly told the Americans that their departure, far from being lamented, would be a good riddance.

The Big Lie of NATO

Anyone who followed the 78-day war of aggression the North Atlantic Treaty Organization waged against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia knows that NATO officials can lie, and have done so with impunity.

But it shows a special kind of arrogance when even the highest official of the Alliance, secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, lies without hesitation.

At a conference today, Scheffer responded to criticism from Afghanistan, where 90 civilians died in NATO operations just this month, with this claim: "Let me make one point unmistakably clear - Nato has never killed and will never intentionally kill innocent civilians."

This right here is postmodern "morality;" actions are deemed moral or immoral based on their perpetrator. So when NATO invades a country, bombs civilian targets, destroys utilities, targets reporters, sponsors ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural monuments, that's "humanitarian intervention" and beyond reproach. But if anyone else is so much as accused of doing any of these things, that's "genocide."

Civilians die in war. That is why starting a war was declared a supreme international crime, back in 1945. Scheffer presides over an Alliance that has violated that law with impunity. So yes, Jaap, you did intentionally kill innocent civilians. That much is unmistakably clear.

Ahtisaari's Real "Rubbish"

Following a report in the Bosnian magazine Fokus, Serbian officials have requested an investigation into allegations that UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari had taken bribes from the Albanian mafia.

According to the magazine, surveillance carried out by the German intelligence (BND) produced evidence of Ahtisaari accepting cash and bank transfer payments from Albanian mafia figures.

The former president of Finland was appointed in 2005 to oversee negotiations between Serbian authorities and the provisional Albanian government set up by the UN in the occupied province, following the 1999 NATO invasion. In February this year, he unveiled his "proposal" for the province that would see it detached from Serbia but functioning as an EU protectorate.

Ahtisaari's spokesman, Remi Dourlot, dismissed the magazine's allegations: "This is a rubbish story, which is actually from a Republica Srpska magazine."

Fokus is indeed published in the Bosnian Serb Republic (RS), but what is Dourlot's point, exactly? That allegations are preposterous simply because they come from a Serb magazine?

Dourlot's dismissal of the story isn't news in itself. But the reasoning he gave - or lack thereof - may just be another important piece towards completing the Ahtisaari puzzle. There is plenty of speculation about Ahtisaari's past and his motives in being at the forefront of carving up Serbia, but it is futile to argue he is not hostile to Serbs.

Prior to his appointment as the UN envoy for Kosovo, Ahtisaari was NATO's envoy to Belgrade during the 1999 war. Afterwards, he became a board member of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based NGO openly supporting Albanian and Montenegrin separatists and Bosnian Muslim centralizers. During the sham "talks" he conducted in Vienna in 2006, he told the Serbian delegation that Serbs bore collective responsibility for what happened in the Balkans during the 1990s. And earlier this year, after his "proposal" was snarled up in Russian objections, Ahtisaari was quoted by Simon Tisdall of the Guardian (in an article supporting the Albanian agenda, no less):

"If the EU cannot do this, it can forget about its role in international affairs. If we can't do this during the German presidency, we should give up and admit we can't do anything."

One can understand the desire to have the EU assert itself diplomatically - however misguided - but what do the Germans have to do with it? Could Ahtisaari's vision of European unity be closer to Quisling's than DeGaulle's?

But then there is the issue of cold, hard cash. The Fokus story named names, listed numbers of bank accounts. In this day and age, it is entirely too easy to verify a story and prove it right or wrong - provided that people want to hear the truth in the first place.

Given that the Empire's case for Kosovo independence is built on violence and lies and that everything concerning the Albanian organized crime is swept under the rug, Dourlot's dismissal of the Fokus story as "rubbish from a Serb magazine" calls forth a phrase well-known to political reporters: "Believe nothing until it's been officially denied."

Bush of Albania

I have resisted temptation to write about the Emperor's Albania trip. I had nothing to add to Neil Clark's brilliant piece, nor was there anything more to say about the purloined watch drama than was in plain sight on YouTube and elsewhere.

If the self-proclaimed autocrat of the known universe wants to make a complete idiot of himself, he's more than welcome to do so. At least this time no one got killed.

Scanning the news stories from the past week, however, my eye caught on this quote by Nancy Snow, identified as "professor of communications at California State University, Fullerton" in an AP report by Paul Chavez:

"You know things aren't going well when you have to go to Albania to have people take to the streets and cheer you."

And there you have it.

The Smoldering Fuse

Much as it pains me to say a kind word about Richard Holbrooke, the chief architect of the Dayton Accords, there's no escaping the fact that his brainchild has managed to keep a lid on armed conflict in Bosnia for over a decade. The way it was written, it could have even settled the fundamental issue over which the war was fought: the concept of government in a state inhabited by three mutually hostile ethnic groups.

The way it was implemented, unfortunately, attempted to shove the country back into the insane paradigm of 1991, with "citizen state" being used as a veil for domination by one community over the others. Countless "reforms" since 1996 have endeavored to create a strong central government at the expense of the entities. What Bosnia needs, on the other hand, is a less powerful government at all levels.

The reason Serbs, Croats and Muslims fight is only partly based in history; the simple truth is that, with the concept of government inherited from the socialist Yugoslavia (which copied it from the USSR), the state has entirely too much control and influence over every aspect of human action. This is statism in its purest form: extortion, violence, robbery, theft. Coupled with the troubled historical heritage, no group trusts the other with such power, but the lure of its privileges is too strong for anyone to contemplate the obvious solution: abolish most of it, and with it the temptation.

One of the reasons the military reform succeeded was the abolition of conscription. Once the military stopped being a tool of social engineering, politicians had no use for it anymore. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that escaped just about everyone, from the locals to the still substantial number of foreign bureaucrats administering, "training" and "overseeing" the country. With the Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik drawing a line in the sand and refusing to dismantle the Serb Republic any further, and Bosnian Muslim leader Haris Silajdzic leading a political jihad to achieve just that, passions are rising again and the fragile peace (or rather, absence of war) in Bosnia looks as if it won't last for long.

A week ago, I received a note from a friend who works in Sarajevo (and wishes to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons):

I am getting more and more worried about this place. [One] of my top staff and a very smart, educated guy, just spent 45 minutes in my office ranting about the political situation. Basically, he made the case for why Bosnia cannot exist as a sovereign state, but he, like everyone else, refuses to see the implications of his own arguments. Instead they call for "radical action," "imposed solutions," "abandoning politics," etc. Almost fascist-feeling, cult of action, will-to-power type stuff...

The people are delusional. They blame Dodik for everything. They say the country has gone backwards in the last two years, and imply it is because of the "disfuntional state institutions." I say the country has progressed, because the people have clearly, democratically spoken, and now we know where people stand. Plus, because reforms have been achieved despite the "disfunctional state," granted only under Dodik in the RS. Perhaps if they wanted the Serbs to have an interest in state institutions, they should have made the Federation work years ago, so the Serbs would be begging to be part of the dynamic economy next door. But instead they squabbled over insignificant details, made Srebrenica the focus of every speech, and divided up the spoils. Besides the "dysfunctional state" is the only kind that fits the state of the country now - it perfectly reflects the dis-united, aimless people.

They cite historical examples, and then misinterpret every one of them. They pray for the US to finally wake up and impose their (Bosniaks') vision on the country. They threaten war if Dodik achieves his (federal) aims democratically...then accuse Dodik of being a threat to the peace.

And suddenly I am hearing people - respected, educated, important people - talking about the failure of democratic institutions, and the consequent need for "radical action"....

The temperature is rising here. Croatians are hopeless. Bosniaks are radicalizing. Serbs are trying to be pragmatic (in my opinion), but they will be ready to respond if someone tries to use force agains them. The US seems to be trying to disengage - they want to impose window dressing reforms and then hand over responsibility to Brussels....

Things certainly sound grim.

Impunity

Kurt Waldheim, former Austrian president and UN Secretary-General, died yesterday.

In the Balkans, he will be remembered primarily as a Nazi officer involved in atrocities against Serbs and Jews in western Bosnia.

Robert Fisk has an interesting and informative obituary detailing Waldheim's "career" in the Belfast Telegraph and the Independent.

So here's a war criminal who not only "escaped justice" but eventually rose to the highest office of the UN, the very organization which later (overstepping its already generously broad mandate) established the illegal "tribunal" for political persecution of Balkans leaders (and some more than others). And no, that's not a typo.

Having covered up the genocide the Nazis and their allies conducted in Yugoslavia during World War Two, the Empire - which, after all, has those very same allies today - fabricated a "genocide" supposedly committed by the Serbs, and has used the "tribunal" as a tool of political pressure to ensure Serb submission. For years we've been hearing about "war criminals eluding justice" and "ending the culture of impunity." The hypocrisy is astounding.

Giving Like He Means It

George Walker Bush the Lesser, Emperor-Aspiring of the Known Universe, Decider, Defender of Democracy, Liberator, Light of Lights, Overmind Most Powerful, etc. etc. visited Albania this weekend. It's one of the few corners of the world where he is not reviled, mostly because Imperial troops (albeit under his predecessor) occupied the Serbian province of Kosovo eight years ago and made it safe for Albanian ethnic cleansing. In fact, His Glorious Serendipity's visit to Tirana fell on the 8th anniversary of the armistice that ended the 1999 invasion.

As a propaganda organization affiliated with the Empire reports, His Elevated Majesty told Albanian Prime Minister Berisha:

“You get your diplomats working with Russians and EU diplomats to see if there is not a common ground,” said Bush, indicating that if there no compromise on Kosovo’s independence the US may act on its own toward the region.

“If you end up being in a position where you don’t, at some point of time, sooner rather than later, you got to say: that’s enough – Kosovo is independent,” said Bush.

Commenting on this pronouncement by His Hegemonic Enormity, Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica said that the Empire "has a right to support certain states and peoples in accordance with its interests, but not by making them a present of something which doesn't belong to it... The U.S. has to find some way of showing its favor and love for the Albanians other than presenting them with Serbian territories."

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether Albania and the Albanians have done anything to deserve Imperial favor and love (ha!), Kostunica has a point here. Even His Most Worshipful Greatness cannot give away what is not his (occupation does not mean ownership, see), so Kosovo is right out. However, he could reward his Albanian vassals with the State of New Jersey. From what I hear, it would not be all that hard.

The Unbearable Emptiness of Democracy

(originally posted on Сиви Соко, May 9. 2007)

The past few months of political intrigue around the new Serbian government are one of the best case studies for the vacuity of democracy in modern times.

What is democracy, really? The Greek compound that meant "rule of the people" in Athenian practice denoted a political system in which decisions were made by a simple majority of present citizens (excluding women, slaves, children and foreigners). Socrates and his disciples spent a long time debating human motivations, nature, truth, virtue and justice, because they had to. Democracy itself was blind to virtue or vice; the will of the majority at any given time was supreme, even though that same will could be completely different the following day. Athenian philosophers thus devoted their lives' work to figuring out a way to make the majority's decisions good and moral. They never found one. Socrates was democratically sentenced to death for "blasphemy and corrupting the youth."

What is democracy today? Is it just multi-party elections? Tolerance of political opposition? Freedom of the press, speech and thought? Everyone talks about democracy, but no one dares say what it means. When Serbian political magazine НСПМ reprinted one of my columns last year - in which I assailed the arbitrary definition of democracy by the Empire - I was criticized by another contributor for disputing "universal values.” What values?

How can something that's absolutely undefined can be some sort of universal value, or a moral and ethical category? Yet "democracy" is being presented as both.

For four days this month, Tomislav Nikolic was the Speaker of the Serbian assembly (Skupština). It's a largely administrative post, charged with presiding over the sessions and making sure the rules of order and conduct are followed. Now, it is true that under extreme circumstances, the Speaker could become the President of Serbia; this was used by the late Prime Minister Djindjic, who appointed his crony Natasa Micic to the spot just before arresting and extraditing President Milutinovic to the ICTY. However, given the atmosphere in the Serbian assembly, one would think only a hardcore masochist would want a job best described as "herding wildcats."

Nikolic's election was protested by EU commissars. A scheduled delegation from Brussels canceled its visit. The world media (otherwise known for their fair and impartial coverage of Serbs, right?) are spreading panic about Nikolic being an ”ultra-nationalist” etc. President Tadic, head of the Democratic Party, said Nikolic's election was ”harmful to state interests” and a ”democratic Serbia.” Or was that a Democratic Serbia?

Tadic's party has been negotiating (or not) for months with the old PM Kostunica about a new government, without results. They claim they got the most votes, so they can dictate the make-up of the government. One teeny little problem with that argument is that the Radicals actually got the most votes. But that's an inconvenient truth, and thus overlooked in "democratic" discussion. Because, you see, only the "democratic bloc" can act democratically and build democracy in a democratic state... At which point I'm getting flashbacks to an 1980s cartoon where every Smurf smurfs smurfingly the entire smurfing day!

The United States is (yes, singular, alas) the self-proclaimed pinnacle of democracy, a country that has arrogated itself the right to spread this concept of government throughout the world (by force if need be), and to judge everyone else's degree of democracy. So they are bothered by Nikolic, or Milosevic, or Lukasenko, or Putin - but not by a star like Saparmurat Niyazov. This recently deceased "president" of Turkmenistan, who declared himself a prophet, erected hundreds of golden statues to himself, abolished libraries and imposed his own book as the only literature Turkmens would ever need, etc. Turkey is considered a "democracy" even though the military has to stage a coup every couple of years to prevent Islamic radicals from getting into power via ballot-box. Boris Yeltsin, the recently deceased president of Russia, democratically sicced tanks on the parliament in 1993, with the roaring applause of Washington. Now that same Washington is jeering his successor Vladimir Putin for "autocracy" because he cracked down on NGOs receiving funding from abroad without adequate tax paperwork. I wish someone would try that sort of stunt in the "democratic" US of A, where no one messes with the IRS. In fact, the IRS is a favorite tool for cracking down on dissidents and undesirables, even though some years back there were those tanks and teargas in Waco...

Come to think of it, Bush the Lesser got fewer votes than Al Gore in November 2000, thus becoming Emperor - er, President - on account of some shady voting in Florida. Relative thing, this democracy. Once all is added up, it turns out democracy is whatever the government in Washington or the commissars in Brussels say it is. At least the autocrats in Washington are elected; who voted for Olli Rehn, Javier Solana, or their fellows? To be clear, I honestly don't think being elected gives anyone legitimacy, but one can't exactly pontificate about the be-all-and-end-all character of democracy without even bothering to at least respect its forms!

Did the Radicals get the most votes in the January election? Yes. Was it shocking that their leader became Speaker of the assembly? Yes, but it should not be. Was Nikolic's election democratic? Absolutely. That this bothers people whose mouths spew democracy daily is just proof of their hypocrisy. Either that, or that they don't know what democracy means. I'm not sure what's worse.

Now, it's a whole different story that the Radicals refuse to propose a government of their own, because it's easier to criticize the "democrats" from the sidelines. It's as if politics were a reality-show contest rather than the very serious business of running a country in crisis. That's why I cringe at the popular expression in Serbia, the "political elite." If this is "elite," then no wonder Serbia is in trouble.

American Founders, back in 1791, didn't put a word about democracy in their Constitution (which had seven articles and ten amendments). It is said that Benjamin Franklin, asked about what the Convention had produced, replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Ask an American today if his country is a republic or a democracy, he'll say "A democracy, of course." Poor Franklin was right about the "if" part.

It was no accident that Orwell attempted to describe totalitarianism through the abuse of language. Every time I hear modern political discourse I get a feeling I'm listening to exercises in blackwhite doublethink of doubleplusgood duckspeakers.

Democracy isn't half the things the "democrats" of all stripes claim it is. Nor is it intrinsically good or moral. It is simply a decision-making process in a political system that assumes the will of the majority is the best way to reach a solution. As to the validity of that assumption, I suggest you talk to Socrates.

Overlooked Consistency

A colleague wonders about the obvious paradox: the Empire is imposing unification in Bosnia while supporting separatism in Kosovo.

This has been obvious to anyone with eyes and ears for quite some time. But in the realm of Imperial "logic" it is entirely possible for people to believe in paradoxes. There is "absolutely no connection" between Bosnia and Kosovo, the chorus of Imperial officials droned (but then they said Kosovo was the "last chapter in the breakup of Yugoslavia; go figure). Bosnia is a "sovereign state," with inviolable borders (and Serbia is not?!). Kosovo is a "unique case" (no, it really isn't). And so on. Consider this:

What seems to govern events in the Balkans under Imperial rule is something that, for lack of a better term, could be termed the "Abramowitz doctrine": a complete absence of any principle that would be valid for all. Indeed, a complete absence of any principle at all, except power.

Completely different rules are in force for Serbs and for Albanians, or Bosnian Muslims; certainly, no external rules whatsoever apply to the Empire, in any of its manifestations. What "rules" that exist are made by Imperial viceroys, commanders, envoys, commissioners, and advisors, on the spot and without any need (or regard) for internal consistency. The ends – ultimately elusive, but hiding under the platitudes of "justice" and "Euro-Atlantic integration" – justify any and all means, while any resistance to them is a priori considered criminal.

Law is non-binding upon the Self-Righteous. Treaties are of no consequence. Neither is logic, for that matter. Understanding is not required, only obedience.

I wrote that in December 2004. The only thing that has changed since is that the Empire has long stopped pretending to care about even the forms of civilized conduct. After all, it is the master of facts, and the rest of us live in the delusional "reality-based community" that only examines the reflections of their glorious deeds, right?

As a matter of fact, there is a logic to Imperial behavior in the Balkans; a sort of macabre consistency: the Serbs are always wrong. Once this "axiom" is accepted, everything the Empire does makes perfect sense. Without it, nothing does.

Before you dismiss this as a "rant of a paranoid Serb" (thus proving the point, actually), I'll explain that this deduction was made by Doug Bandow.

Morton Abramowitz famously quipped that Serbs "seek perfect reasoning" where there isn't any. As Bandow's deduction shows, only the first half of that statement is true. There is reasoning, but it is so corrupt, so twisted, so absurd, it's dismissed as impossible by Serbs. "Surely they wouldn't... Surely it can't be..."

Newsflash: Yes, they would, and have. Yes, it can be, and is.

If the bombs of 1999 didn't teach this lesson... what will?

Constitution vs. Freedom

By way of a friend in faraway New Zealand, I received this afternoon an opinion piece from the New Zealand Herald, in which the author argues for a Constitution. Apparently, the only three democracies in the world without one are the UK, New Zealand and Israel, and now Gordon Brown (Blair's heir-designate as PM) is talking about changing that in Britain.

If you read the original piece, it's clear that the author sees the Constitution as a bulwark for government programs (education, healthcare, politics of race, etc.) rather than against government abuses. I'm suspecting the same "logic" is at work in Britain; a decade of Blairism has led to many changes in British state and society, and it's only natural for Blair's heir to wish to cement these impositions, rather than risk them undone by someone else down the line.

Here's a passage from the NZ Herald op-ed that seeks to camouflage this sentiment and present a constitution as a protection of rights:

The Institute for Public Policy in Britain has warned that its Parliament can deprive citizens of centuries-old rights "by the same means as an alteration of the speed limit" - that is, a 51 per cent vote.

Welcome to democracy! That's precisely what it's about, when one gets rid of the legalistic frills. Of course the thought is terrifying. But it is precisely because the Parliament has such power that it has been exercised with restraint. That is, until Oliver Cromwell Blair chose to remake Britain in his own vision...

The American constitution, which established the federal government of the U.S.A., was a compromise between statist, empire-building ambitions and a conservative distrust of government. Fast-forward 200+ years since its passage, and one can easily see all the provisions limiting federal government power either circumvented or ignored completely, while a multi-trillion-dollar bureaucracy employing millions has arisen out of deliberate misinterpretation of a couple of words (i.e. commerce clause). But Americans today insist they are free, because the Constitution protects them. Right. And the Moon is made of cheese.

States love constitutions. Rather than being the chain that binds their power, constitutions are a disguise that protects their tyranny. When the behavior of the state is governed by tradition, history and precedents, society has control over the state. Once a paper replaces tradition, that control moves into the hands of the state itself. A court reviews it, a parliament of some kind amends it. The state becomes its own arbiter. How likely is it to judge itself harshly? If you answer "very," I've some beachfront real-estate in Nevada for you. Call now, operators are standing by.

If Britain gets a constitution - and with Labour controlling all the levers of government, the question is not "if " but rather "when" - it will become even less free than it is today (which, admittedly, isn't much). I don't know how highly the Kiwis value their liberty, but they are guaranteed to lose it if they follow Britain's example; leaving Israel as the only democratic state that answers to an authority higher than itself.

Aptly ironic, if you ask me.

Stranger Than Fiction

One of the reasons I don't even try writing fiction is that reality is often much stranger. A story involving three months of negotiations that went nowhere, a surprise election of the parliament speaker, a surprise reversal, overt foreign interference and a last-minute swearing-in of a new cabinet would have been dismissed as contrived and incredulous. And yet that's precisely what happened in Serbia over the past two weeks.

After the constitutional referendum last fall, Serbia held parliamentary elections in January. The ramshackle coalition that had somehow managed to maintain a minority government since 2004 did not manage to win enough votes for a new mandate. But then, neither did anyone else. The Radical party once again got the biggest chunk of the votes, yet not enough for a majority. Imperial legates and EU komissars put considerable pressure on Serbia to establish a "democratic bloc" government - effectively resurrecting the old DOS coalition that executed a the October 2000 coup.

For a moment there, early last week, their wish seemed doomed: prime minister Kostunica's DSS supported the election of Tomislav Nikolic, leader of the Radicals, as the parliament's Speaker. Amidst the resulting wailing, howling and gnashing of teeth, Kostunica reversed his position (or did he?) and successfully negotiated a deal with president Tadic's Democratic party and ex-partner G17 Plus. Nikolic resigned from his post after just four days, managing to retain an appearance of dignity and integrity amidst the parliamentary discussion that resembled a particularly vulgar episode of Jerry Springer.

The new, "democratic" government has more cabinet posts than it used to under DOS, tailored to fit party leaders and trusted cronies. Now, if the powers of the Serbian government were properly limited, none of this would be an issue. Unfortunately, and even under the new Constitution, the state is still near-omnipotent at home (circumscribed only by the wishes of its imperial overlords). In two fields that one might argue are legitimate domains of the state - foreign affairs and defense - Tadic cronies and Imperial lackeys are now firmly in charge. I never thought I would regret the political demise of ex-Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic, but his replacement beggars belief.

To paraphrase ex-Reichsmarschall Rumsfeld, you make the government with the parties you have. It is just depressing that in today's Serbia, the only alternatives to this pathetic collection of lackeys, quislings and fools are the fist-pounding populist Radicals (who'd rather have Serbia be a Russian province, if at all possible), or the even greater quislings, lackeys and fools, ex(?)-Communist "liberal democrats."

Serbia desperately needs a party - or better yet, a movement - that would seek to limit the power of the state in matters domestic, and ensure that in matters of actual national interest (defense of territory, lives and property of its citizens; foreign relations), elected representatives serve the people of Serbia, rather than the governments in Washington, Brussels, or even Moscow. Most people around the world would take these things for granted. In Serbia, they remain in the realm of fiction.

Quisling's Cause

John Laughland has an excellent and informative piece in the most recent Spectator, revealing that the idea of European unity was championed vocally by none other than Vidkun Quisling, the infamous Norwegian collaborator during the Nazi occupation. He also uncovers some interesting tidbits about Nazi flirtation with "Europeanism."

This isn't to say that today's Eurocrats are Nazis; they are more Soviet in their statist zealotry, if anything. But it is a good counter-argument to the oft-repeated canard that the EU arose as a reaction to Hitler and the second world war.