http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904a/yugodismantle.html
First site that popped up on Google:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/kosovo/Kosovo-controversies43.html
Their thesis appears to be that this "war" was initiated by the IMF imposing policies in a deliberate attempt to destabilise the Yugoslav economy in the 1980s so that the country would fragment to provide an excuse to invade in 1999 when the Fourth International article was written. Readers in the UK will be rather amused to find that the first (broken) link to come up when you search the web for Michel Chossudovsky using the BBC engine leads to David Icke's site. This presumably is the same David Icke who is the ex-sports programme presenter whose brief forray into politics was rather undermined by his views on the personal nature of God (ie he thought God was his dad)
That of course is not to deny that the policies of the IMF during those two decades were not incompetent or that a number of economies around the world suffered because they adhered to the recommendations of the IMF and World Bank. However, to suggest as Michel Chossudovsky seems to do that they were specifically designed to damage Yugoslavia looks like paranoid nonsense designed to provide an pseudo-intellectual basis for opposition to the NATO interventions.
In fact even the articles you quote are inconsistent with your claim that this supposed "economic war" was due to the Yugoslav government being Communist. The Nick Beams article on the World Socialist site quotes a Susan Woodward as writing:
the real origins of the breakdown of civil and political order lay in the economic decline caused largely by the debt repayment program imposed by the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions.
Now this supports my comment that Yugoslavia was disengaged from the main Communist block, not a member of Comecon and that to an extent they were regarded as more "western". The IMF and "other international financial institutions" did not lend to the main USSR-centered communist block.
The WSWS also quotes a report to Madeline Albright as stating
"In 1987," Zoakos wrote, "the old Yugoslavia, with all its tragic failings, was still a functioning state. The International Monetary Fund then took over economic policy....
"When the IMF shock therapy hit Yugoslavia, the initial form of social disorder was not ethnic friction but massive and repeated strikes and labor actions. As late as 1988, an enterprising US journalist employed in Belgrade had difficulty in finding ethnic passions and reported: ' "I would be a Serb, a Bosnian, anything--an Uzbekistani--I'd make my eyes slanted, if I'd have money," says a Belgrade taxi driver named Zoran, stretching the skin around his eyes to make the point.' Ordinary people turned into ethnic monsters only after all their options for a normal economic life were destroyed. 'Ethnic cleansing' arrived only after 'shock therapy' had done its work."
That last assertion is clear nonsense. Apart from there arguably being a history of "ethnic cleansing", even if it was not called that, going back to the earliest days of Yugoslavia, the infamous visit of Milosevic to Kosovo Polje in 1987 is evidence to the contrary. His original mission was to mediate between the Serb and Albanian sides. You will also see above that the year before that Serb orthodox bishops were talking about genocide.
First, you got combative and asked for "any evidence whatsoever." Then when I offered you links "whatsoever" you proceeded to do a Google search and cite a link to Choussodosky's work from some British sportscaster? Really, I have no idea why you did that. Is the sportscaster's disgrace to be blamed on Choussodosky? Next, you call him a Trotskite, though he's a famous historian in Canada and a well-known academic. Not a marginal figure at all. Third, Albright is not a source I would put my trust in. Her rendition of the effect of those loans is very telling. The World Bank and the IMF are NOT above being used as politcial tools. I think this is a very naive view of world banking.
Lastly, I see you avoided the Jack Kemp quote altogether.
His Global Research site is reprinting all sorts of articles which support the "Milosevic is a Serbian martyr" line. The impartiality of his "history" writings must also be called into question by his political position in opposition to the 1999 action. While this position did have some support in North America and even less in Europe among those who had genuine anti-war credentials, the Milosevic apologism must indicate a considerable bias in his other writings. This one in particular , first written in 1999 but on a web page dated 21 March 2006 clearly indicates this:
The causes and consequences of this war have been the object of a vast media disinformaiton campaign, which has sought to camouflage NATO and US crimes. It is important to note that a large segment of the "Progressive Left" in Western Europe and North America were part of this disinformation campaign, presenting NATO military intervention as a necessarry humanitarian operation geared towards protecting the rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The intervention was in violation of internaional law. President Milosevic at the Rambouillet talks had refused the stationing of NATO troops inside Yugoslavia. The demonization of Slobodan Milsovic by so-called "Progressives" has served over the years to uphold the legitimacy of the NATO bombings. It has also provided credibility to "a war crimes tribunal" under the jurisidiction of those who committed extensive war crimes in the name of social justice. The Just War thesis was also upheld by several prominent intellectuals including Richard Falk who viewed the Kosovo war as: "a Just War because it was undertaken to avoid a likely instance of "ethnic cleansing" undertaken by the Serb leadership of former Yugoslavia, and it succeeded in giving the people of Kosovo an opportunity for a peaceful and democratic future" (Richard Falk). In turn the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was upheld by several "Leftists" as a bona fide liberation movement rooted in Marxism. The KLA was and remains a paramilitary army supported by Western intelligence, financed and trained by the US and NATO. It has ties to organised crime. It has links to Al Qaeda, which is also supported by US intelligence.
The causes and consequences of this war have been the object of a vast media disinformaiton campaign, which has sought to camouflage NATO and US crimes.
It is important to note that a large segment of the "Progressive Left" in Western Europe and North America were part of this disinformation campaign, presenting NATO military intervention as a necessarry humanitarian operation geared towards protecting the rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
The intervention was in violation of internaional law. President Milosevic at the Rambouillet talks had refused the stationing of NATO troops inside Yugoslavia.
The demonization of Slobodan Milsovic by so-called "Progressives" has served over the years to uphold the legitimacy of the NATO bombings. It has also provided credibility to "a war crimes tribunal" under the jurisidiction of those who committed extensive war crimes in the name of social justice.
The Just War thesis was also upheld by several prominent intellectuals including Richard Falk who viewed the Kosovo war as: "a Just War because it was undertaken to avoid a likely instance of "ethnic cleansing" undertaken by the Serb leadership of former Yugoslavia, and it succeeded in giving the people of Kosovo an opportunity for a peaceful and democratic future" (Richard Falk).
In turn the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was upheld by several "Leftists" as a bona fide liberation movement rooted in Marxism.
The KLA was and remains a paramilitary army supported by Western intelligence, financed and trained by the US and NATO. It has ties to organised crime. It has links to Al Qaeda, which is also supported by US intelligence.
Is the Kemp you are quoting the one whose Wikipedia entry includes:
Although mentioned as a possible 2000 presidential candidate, Kemp did not run, instead endorsing eventual winner Governor of Texas George W. Bush. Jack Kemp also started the free market advocacy group Empower America, which later merged with Citizens for a Sound Economy to form FreedomWorks, but resigned as Co-Chairman of FreedomWorks in March 2005 after he was questioned by the FBI about his ties to Samir Vincent, a Northern Virginia oil trader implicated in the U.N. Oil-for-food scandal who pled guilty to four criminal charges stemming from the scandal, including illegally acting as an unregistered lobbyist of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.[1] That same year he was exposed as being part of a highly questionable oil-for-influence deal with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. [2] His legacy includes the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of the 1980s, also known as the first of the two "Reagan tax cuts." He also served at a Distinguished Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where he wrote regularly on economic and regulatory issues.
Jack Kemp also started the free market advocacy group Empower America, which later merged with Citizens for a Sound Economy to form FreedomWorks, but resigned as Co-Chairman of FreedomWorks in March 2005 after he was questioned by the FBI about his ties to Samir Vincent, a Northern Virginia oil trader implicated in the U.N. Oil-for-food scandal who pled guilty to four criminal charges stemming from the scandal, including illegally acting as an unregistered lobbyist of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.[1]
That same year he was exposed as being part of a highly questionable oil-for-influence deal with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. [2]
His legacy includes the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of the 1980s, also known as the first of the two "Reagan tax cuts." He also served at a Distinguished Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where he wrote regularly on economic and regulatory issues.
A link to the letter you quote from would be useful to put the snippet in context however from the biodgraphical details he seems to be a proto-neo-con who is always good to provide a client with connections providing the price is right. Do you have details of his financial supporters in the period before he wrote that letter?
In his March 6 2006 column in townhall.com he writes of the Israeli "security wall":
While the wall sounds ominous, its effects on the ground create a better climate for talks with the Palestinian Authority.
my recent trip to Israel, co-sponsored by the American Israeli Friendship League, where I led a mission of U.S. financial industry executives on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Commerce Trade and Finance.
So you seem to rely on one Canadian historian (extensively) who has a clear pro-Serb bias and a US Republican who it appears write say anything that pleases his latest client.
Does this quote show that you are genuinely open to discussion on this issue?
"The impartiality of his "history" writings must also be called into question by his political position in opposition to the 1999 action."
I'm also opposed to the 1999 action in Kosovo. I have no idea why that disqualifies me from offering evidence that you asked for. Nor does it make me a Milosevic apologist. I suggest we stick closer to the discussions at hand rather than trying to brand each other with political labels and smears in some ideological battle that frankly I don't have the time for.
I made it clear that there were two groups opposed to the 1999 NATO action. One was clearly on the Serb side either out of a personal connection or from sympathy for the Serb cause. The diary makes it clear that there are national/ethnic myths that pervade Serbian politics and which Milosevic played on. The other group were those who one might expect to be opposed to any military action either because of religious belief (Quakers for example) or other pacifist views which could include scepticism about the official line to persuade the US body politic to support the action. Given the lies about Iraq from Bush, this scepticism can seem justified however Bush's deceit does not make Clinton's case invalid. After the experience of a UN force with a limited mandate being unable to stop the massacres in Bosnia, there was overwhelming support in the rest of Europe for far more robust terms of engagement in Kosovo. The USA had to be virtually dragged into acting. Anybody like a historian who is interpreting primary sources has to be viewed critically. I for one would question David Irving, a well known English historian, when he was commenting on the Holocaust or writing a history of WWII.
The main body of this diary gives as neutral a history of the region as is possible. Bringing in comments clearly affected by the propaganda of one side without critically examining it, as you did with your theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, had to be challenged.
Serbs do appear to have a national self image of an oppressed group against who all others plot. You only have to look at the debacle of the country's entry into the Eurovision Song Contest this year to see it made manifest and sooner or later you will be claiming the referendum later this year which is likely to result in the independence of Montenegro was the result of a plot by the west against Serbia - but that no doubt will form part of the next diary.
Now I presume from your comments you fall into the second group of protestors I identified. Choussodosky is clearly approaching the situation with pre-formed opinions. You make very extensive references to his works whenever you comment on the Balkans. The article I quoted, which I will remind you HE has re-published on his web site this week, shows clear sympathy for Milosevic (note his criticism of the "demonisation of" ) If you are going to comment adversely on the motives of one side, I think it essential that you do so by using a neutral or unbiased commentator. Choussodosky clearly is not and unfortuantely I have not been able to find further details of his family history as he is merely described as "Canadian". Were, for example, his family to have emigrated from the Balkans and carried the Serb national myths with them, one would find a reason behind his obvious sympathies. His whole body of work on the Balkans seems one sided (or you have quoted selectively from his work to support that side and I have not found any "balancing" commentaries on his site from him)
You erect straw man after straw man in your argument. Critiquing American politicians according to who funds them may be a fun passtime, but it gets this conversation nowhere. Be specific. How is Jack Kemp's comment about Western financial involvement in Yugoslavia subverted by his campaign contributions? Who is funding Kemp's apparent "pro-Yugoslavian" views? All American politicians take money Does that mean you should just ignore absolutely everything they say?
Second, you describe those who oppose the West's actions in Kosovo as either Serbian nationalist sympathizers or Quaker pacifists or skeptics? Does this seem like an honest argument to you? I have no idea why you brought Bush's Iraq into this. Seems to me Albright's actions on their face are repugnant enough. I don't care for politicans who squelch already agreed to peace plans and then watch smugly as thousands die.
Third, the USA had to be dragged into acting? Um, it was France and Germany who frowned on Albright's exploits in Rambouillet (quite rightly!). It was Albright who screeched at Colin Powell, "What good is your army?" It was the US who pressed the war, while France (the peace conference's host) clearly thought a peace offer had been made. You need to revise your opinion on this.
David Irving? What? What? What?
Fourth, then you write this drivel: "Bringing in comments clearly affected by the propaganda of one side without critically examining it, as you did with your theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, had to be challenged."
What is my theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, again? Where did you challenge the professor? All I see is that you engaged in character assassination. You didn't challenge anything one bit.
As for the rest, Eurovision or what nonsense you write, I see you have trouble sticking to the specific arguments at hand, and most of your retort constitutes an attempt to smear me with any boogeyman you have at hand, AIPAC and David Irving and some sportscaster I never heard of. Frankly, this is all beneath me, and it's the end of my participation in this discussion with you.
I tried to talk specifics, this is my third attempt to generously offer a way of getting to the bottom of things, and all I get are vilifications.
I don't have the time.
You can have the final word.
I lifted part of the Wikipedia entry for Jack Kemp simply because it shows that he has a record of being a right wing Republican who is against organisations like the IMF and World Bank for purely ideological reasons. The independence and validity of his expressed opinions can certainly be called into guestion when you examine the piece I quoted on the Israeli security wall which are bizarre to say the least and can only be the line fed to him by the Israeli government as it is challenged by many Israelis, let alone virtually every government outside of Israel and the USA.
You will also note that I linked to those items I quoted. I asked you for a link to the Jack Kemp letter you quoted and you still fail to do so which means the extracts you print cannot be put in context. The link you did give goes to an article by Michel Chossudovsky. My obsevervation of his own reposting of a 1999 article he wrote which justifies Milosevic's action at a time when the Serb Socialists are trying to create a martyr myth around the murderer is highly indicative that Chossudovsky is a massacre justified, if not denyer.
