Betrayal in Belgrade

If you want to talk about Imperialism and international crimes against the Balkans you've got to place the blame on the correct American. No, not Clinton or Bush. The real bad boy that caused the longest historical tragedy: Woodrow Wilson.

Yugoslavia was not some voluntary association of various Slavic nationalities. It was created by the same sort of Imperialist edict you sound off against. Yugoslavia was patched together out of the leftovers of the Austro-Hungarian empire by the Four powers after W.W.I and gave this new country its own King...

Nebojsa Malic holds forth about Treason against Yugoslavia as though the rule of law was something respected there by an independent judiciary and carried out by a politically neutral police force. Hello? Anytime in the last fifty years? Remember Communism? Exactly what planet does this version of Yugoslavia exist upon where the rule of law was respected?

I do regret that Slobodan Milosevic will not get his day in court before a Serbian judge. I believe he has a lot to answer for his conduct against his own fellow Serbs as well.

I am curious as to how his family enriched itself during the decade his fellow countrymen lost 70% of their standard of living. I am curious if the same trucks he used to dispose of opposition ballots last year were used to dispose dead Albanians that seem to be popping up around Belgrade. As if the Balkans do not have enough ghosts already... That kind of 'Heroism' does not stand up well to daylight.

~ James Berthelot

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Both history and logic here are somewhat questionable. Woodrow Wilson's imperialist intervention created Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Baltic states, but Yugoslavia was formed by the kingdom of Serbia and the seceding areas of Austria-Hungary with Serb, Croat and Slovenian majority. The Entente powers merely recognized it.

Communist Yugoslavia was put together by force of arms – again, with little or no Western interference. I have read Djilas, Dedijer, Cosic, and Tito. Communists indeed cared little for rule of law, choosing "pragmatism on behalf of the greater good" instead. Does that ring a bell? Yet precisely because there was no rule of law under the Communists, there is a pressing need for law now – just as there is a need for principles, integrity, honor and courage, after their prolonged absence.

---

Culture Dialog

[Regarding Sascha Matuszak's column, "Culture of Pollution":]

E. Ewing: "Yangren" does not mean "barbarians." "Yang" means "ocean," "ren" means "person." The literal Chinese meaning is "people of ocean," meaning "people who came from across the oceans." "Yangren" is [a term] usually used for Westerners.

Sascha Matuszak: According to the usage of the word "yangren" it does, indeed, mean outsiders, which would also mean people from the sea – but the meaning is definitely not benign as in "those cuddly yangren." The way I have heard it used describes more of a violent invader. "Yangren" has a less friendly connotation than "laowai" which is less friendly than "weiguoren," which is most often used for Westerners, according to my experience here on the mainland. Yangren is never used for westerners unless as an epithet.

EE: The Mongols saw themselves as Chinese; as did the Manchurians who later established the Ching Dynasty.

SM: If the Mongols considered themselves Chinese, why is there a Mongolia? A Great Wall to keep them out? A completely different language?

Also, after the death of Ol Ghenghis, his sons, busy kicking Arab, Russian, Polish, German etc. butt returned to Ulaan Batuur with their armies to strengthen their claims for the title of Khan and not to Beijing become Emperor of All Under Heaven. They actually never made it back.

I think what might really be the case is that the conquered assimilated the conquerors and made them into Chinese. Like every other minority in China. Not any different from any other nations' dealings with a patchwork of cultures within their borders.

EE: I have a feeling many minorities in central China do not agree with these ethnic segregationists. I myself was born and raised in Taiwan, and have never been to the mainland China, but I detest any ethnic segregation movement in China.

SM: You've never been to mainland China which means you've probably never hung out with a band of Uighers. I, about as Chinese as apple pie, have done both. The fellas I spoke with are immigrants to Sichuan – more money, more jobs than their native Qinghai. They don't particularly like the place, the food or the people – but they do like counting the money at the end of the day.

I've heard a Uigher argue profusely that he was Chinese while a Han argued the opposite. I've heard Kashgar bread (and maybe other things) dealers talk about a bombing campaign to get the Han out of Kashgar. My Han students from Xinjiang tell me about Spring Festival bombings, University riots between Uigher and Han and about one of their brother's girlfriend, a Uigher. The one with the brother – her best friend is half-Uigher.

So I think the situation is very complex and quite unstable. The Uigher further East, in Qinghai and Gansu and Ningxia, maybe they don't hold as much animosity as the Turks on the border, but they certainly are not happy with life in Qinghai, where the incoming Han are either rich, soldiers or officials.

EE: Things like the Tibet movement creates an incredulous feeling in the Chinese people, who are outraged at "the lies that Tibet was occupied China." Just imagine if someone told us Florida was never part of the US when we are familiar with its shape, Florida was stolen from the Seminole by the Spanish and by the US later on. History goes to the winner.

SM: I agree we are turning the Chinese against the US and that this isn't a good thing. But in mainland China, the Tibetans and Uighers and Turks live poor in a poor land. That's why they come to Central China, not because they are Chinese, but because being Chinese gives them access to better education, better jobs and better opportunities. So with money and Beijing on one side and an exile and poverty on the other, which would you pick?

---

Milosevic's Martyrdom

Justin Raimondo's July 6 column sharpened my thinking about Kostunica, and strikes me as correct (in remarking that Kostunica is a principled, old-style liberal). I had previously become confused about what to think of him, and was taken in by Nebojsa Malic's remark that Kostunica tacitly approved of Milosovic's extradition. Thanks for straightening things out.

~ T. Bole

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Only time will tell which one of us was right about Kostunica. For the Serbs' sake – and the sake of the Balkans in general – I hope it is Justin.

---

EU Debate

[Regarding Carl Haber's letter, "EU Debate":]

…Carl Haber writes that, "federalizing small states – this is what avoids war." But this reflects a complete and total reversal and about-face with regard to the conflicts in the Balkans. This is all the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats demanded in Bosnia, "federalizing" the small state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, where there was no majority of the population. "Federalization" is all that the Krajina Serbs demanded in Croatia. But then, Mr. Haber was with those in NATO/US and Germany and the Vatican who adamantly opposed any such notion of "federalization". Why the change now? Is it because now the propaganda needs to change to support Greater Albania terrorism and separatism/secession? Why doesn't Mr. Haber support "federalization" in Bosnia now? Won't it lead to the avoidance of war (i.e., peace)?

Mr. Haber writes that "rabid nationalism" and "religious fundamentalism" and an "us versus them mentality" are what lead to war and ethnic conflict. But wasn't the former neo-fascist regime of Franjo Tudjman a rabid nationalist regime? Tudjman sought to destroy the Serbian population of Croatia. He referred to Israelis as Judeo-Nazis and sanctioned genocide as an acceptable way to solve ethnic conflict (in his book, Wasteland of Historical Reality). The ultra-nationalist Islamist Alija Izetbegovic was a religious fundamentalist who sought to make Bosnia into …a Muslim fundamentalist state (as he wrote in the Islamic Declaration, 1970). And yet NATO/US and the EU supported both Izetbegovic and Tudjman. If the US, NATO, and the EU had supported "federalization of small states", there would have been no conflicts in Bosnia and Krajina. But instead, the EU/US/NATO supported the opposite: centralized, "multiethnic", unitary states. This policy lead to disaster in Bosnia and Krajina.

~ Carl K. Savich, Serbianna.com

Previous Backtalk