he Balkan countries are a clear example of naivete and
blind faith in the benevolence of the New World Order.
After more than 13 years they still believe in the good
intentions of Washington and Brussels, in Euro-Atlantic
integration as the solution for all their problems, and
strictly follow their western mentors because they
believe it is the only approach which will result in
their acceptance into the European family. The infantile
creatures which rule these countries still believe,
after all their negative experiences, that they can find
help and support only in the west, among the two biggest
promoters of globalisation: the USA and the EU.
Sometimes they even claim to the public that even if the
negative role of the USA in the Balkans can be proved
(such as the bombardment of a European capital for the
first time since the Second World War, for example),
there is still hope in Europe and its EU organization;
which is said to represent the essential antithesis to
American global hegemony. Let's examine the truth.
Relations between Brussels and Washington
To understand the real essence of these organisations it
is enough to look at their founding documents and the
strategic plans which led the Americans to support
European unity and integration, and later on the
creation of European economic co-operation in the early
fifties and the first step toward the European Economic
Community (EEC) and later the European Union (EU). In
his comparative study, 'The Marshal Plan', American
Michael Hoogan claims that the primary motivation of the
Marshall Plan was "the creation of European Economic
co-operation similar to the United States of America."
During the period of its development, European
integration became more independent and created some
kind of political emancipation from Washington, but its
fundamentals and its essence are deeply connected not
only with direct American financial intervention after
the war, but also with the structure of integration
which reminds us more of an American form of integration
(the United States of America) than a European imperial
and traditional spirit within a political tradition.
Because of that we can conclude that it is still
difficult to talk about some kind of opposition between
the EU and its approach to NATO and the United States of
America. In the past few years this has become more
specific in terms of Serbian politics, but also for the
politics and public opinion of other Balkan countries
attempting to create a clear distinction between NATO
and the EU and even some kind of hostility in relations
between these two organizations and their approach
towards problems in the Balkans. During this discourse,
NATO is represented like a military organisation which
is generating the politics of violence and because of
that does not correspond to our own interests, whilst
the EU is represented as organisation which promotes
economic co-operation and which has been contributing to
the prosperity of its new members in the southern
European states - Spain, Greece and Portugal - which
were on a similar level of development to the former
Yugoslavia. This kind of approach is ignoring one basic
fact and that is that the fundamental element of
politics isn't based on the character of a particular
state or organisation (be it military, economic or
political) but on the political will which is expressed
through concrete political acts on the world stage.
The entire history of European unification is a clear
indicator of the direction of further developments
relating to integration, and this is the direction of
economic trilateralism and political globalisation with
an American monopoly of force as the basic guarantee for
the conservation of world affairs.
The domain of Brussels
EU and NATO are organisations at the service of those
Atlantist countries which gravitate around the centre in
Brussels. This centre, which is at the same time is the
capital of an artificial Belgium, was founded as a
result of British attempts to secure an important
stronghold in the heart of Europe and represents the
very capital itself (a decision which is clearly no
accident). It is the centre around which are gravitating
the heartlands of the future transatlantic empire. NATO
and the EU are two aspects of this future empire on the
shores of the Atlantic.
Like any other empire, NATO/EU has its centre and
periphery, which means particular territory and constant
politics with a main goal being the protection of the
realm ruled by Brussels (or, in newspeak, the
'stabilisation of the region'). Also, of course,
potentially spreading to new spaces and regions. This is
the growth of the transatlantic empire or, according to
the propaganda of Brussels, 'the spreading of European
virtues'.
Because Europe has been under the military protection of
the USA for 50 years and European troops during this
same period didn't win any major wars without foreign
help (except for the British success in the Falklands,
but with crucial diplomatic and military assistance from
the USA and Chile), the economic aspect is one of the
rare elements of domination which has remained in the
sovereign control of Europeans, but also supported by
American plans, at first, immediately after the end of
the Second World War, and then later on during attempts
to create the world trilateral economy.
That was the main reason for Europe's acceptance of this
economy and her rejection of politics and militarism,
because the fundamental weapon in the efforts to create
a new Europe (instead of creating an answer to the
American challenge) became the optimal approach to
European problems within the realm of international
politics. If we ignore the pacifist anti-military
movements of the '70s and '80 and some pro-European
orientated parties, both on the left and right, Europe
was officially following Western politics in its
relationship with the USSR. Only De Gaulle retreated
from this strategy somewhat, but he did this as the
chief of the French State and as a representative of
Europe. He was searching for a revival of old French
glory and he saw in European integration an instrument
for achieving his aims. However, his actions did not
have any real important influence - even in France - as
far as creating some kind of alternative to Washington
was concerned. He left the military structure of NATO
but remained active in the political structure, and
generally did not harm the French alliance with the USA
at all. Because his politically and ideologically
Gaullist descendent, Jacque Chirac (perhaps ironically),
restored French membership within the military structure
of NATO, the present-day conclusion we can draw from
such events is that the strategy of De Gaulle ended
without any visibly important results. Maybe the future
will show us something more significant, but for now we
cannot predict what it will be.
The end of the Cold War didn't establish any kind of
emancipation from the EEC/EU, but a more effective
participation in the process of globalization. Because
the EU represents a kind of archetype, a type of
proto-mondialistic project and because of that is
typologically related to the artificial globalisation of
the world, it is logical to expect that it will be
incorporated within globalisation and not become any
form of strong opposition to globalisation itself.
Brussels is binding her economic domain with a
legislative and unique political will. There are similar
roles at work here, like in many other systems, from
ordinary economic co-operation to complete federal or
unitaristic states. The heart of European Union is the
territory of the ancient Frankish State. With the
dissolution of this state came France, the northern
Italian states (united as Italy in 1861) and the Holy
Roman Empire of the German nation which was restored as
the Second Reich in 1871.
These countries, together with Belgium, Holland and
Luxembourg were creating the fundamentals of European
unification. Around this centre and during the process
of European integration and the spreading of European
Economic co-operation were gravitating many different
countries from Denmark and Ireland to Greece and
Portugal. But the process of integration didn't have the
same effects in different countries.
It is enough to take a look at the contemporary monetary
integration and to get a clear picture of the whole
situation. Less developing countries accepted the Euro
without any major objections. In fact the acceptance of
joint Euro currency represented the success of the
economies of those countries. The only less developed
country that didn't enter in European Monetary Union
from the beginning was Greece, but not because of the
political will of the government in Athens, but because
it didn't have the necessary monetary criteria. The
other developed countries, the Protestant north -
Britain, Sweden and Denmark - are not showing any
political will to join the Euro. Denmark even refused
the Maastrict Agreement during her referendum of 1992,
whilst Britain had opportunist attitudes toward European
integration and her participation. The latest refusal of
the Euro in the Swedish referendum is another step in
this process.
It is not easy for the centre to impose its will on the
developed parts of its domain, because it doesn't have
any real important influence there. The influence of the
centre (the economic centre, which consists of the
German, Benelux, French and north Italian economies and
which are mostly gravitated toward Germany) is dominant
towards the less developed southern parts of the EU (it
has dramatically altered Spanish, Portuguese and Greek
society). But its influence is very small, even
negligible, in the developed parts of the EU. These
parts with their own subventions and also with their
political and cultural influence are giving more to the
EU than they are taking from the centre for themselves.
Or, in more simple terms, sometimes they have suffered
more damage than benefit. Because the essence of EU
relations can still be described more as co-ordination
than as subordination, it is clear that Brussels - which
represents the administrative outpost of the European
Economic centre - cannot force upon England and Sweden
the same political, legislative and monetary decisions
which can be forced on the Portuguese and Greeks.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall the economy became the
forerunner of all other Western penetrations in the
East. We can talk about the spreading of Western
political culture in line with the development and
restoration of pluralism, the multi-party political
democracy and civil rights and liberties. We can also
talk about the spread of the military, but only with
NATO integration and the de facto occupation of
south-eastern Europe which has taken over a decade and
which still isn't finished. But the roots of economic
penetration can be localised in the late-eighties. The
European economy (led by Germany) after the fall of the
Berlin Wall used the German Mark to penetrate the vaults
of all Eastern European countries.
Economic experts in the guise of government advisors
overwhelmed East European capitals, whilst East European
countries were not in a position to offer their own
original economic models different from Euro-Atlanticist
integrations, and so the space of Eastern Europe fell
totally under the domination of the EC centre. Because
Eastern Europe is made up of areas with a totally
different outlook to those in the EEC (the planned
economy, for example) and that the fundamentals were
immediately destroyed, it was clear that the position of
these countries is much worse than the position of
Portugal or Greece. Because there was not any serious
protective mechanisms it was easy for the EU to
establish its full economic domination over Eastern
Europe, which was enough for the economic pseudo-empire
of the EU to begin dictating political and legislative
terms to Eastern Europe.
Today, Eastern European countries are de facto parts of
the European economic domain, and the only difference
between them and the other countries or members of the
EU is their status. The borders of the Brussels domain
today are in the Ukraine and Turkey. An inability to
force its economic domination upon Turkey is one of the
reasons for Brussels' refusal to accept Turkey as a
member-state of the EU, not the fact that Turkey is a
Muslim country or has not made any improvements as far
as respecting human rights is concerned. If Brussels
successfully involves Turkey in its economic domain,
which is the very object of its persistence, these
problems will become marginal and the problems
concerning the unification of Turkish and European
legislature would be soluble with the will of Brussels
and easily realised, in the same way as in Eastern
Europe today.
The relationship between Brussels and the
German-French-Italian centre and the East European
periphery could be compared to the relationship
established in the past between Washington and some
parts of the USA in the process of conquering the West
and also in the relationship between the centre and the
colonies in the age of the colonial expansion of Europe.
American (or Washington) authority was eventually spread
de facto in many areas in the West and throgh many
contemporary states like Arizona, for example, which
didn't have the status of the federal state for some
time. It had a territorial status and was part of the
USA but with far less privileges then the federal
states. This status was mainly a characteristic for the
less developed south-western parts of the state, in
contrast to the northern and more developed parts which
had status from the beginning and were representing the
cradle of the USA. The other example is those of the
former colonies. They were all under de facto rule of
the centre - the colonial power - but some of them had
the status of being overseas territories with important
self-rule, some of them were protectorates and classical
colonies with great restrictions in terms of their
fundamental rights and liberties. There was some
evolution, but it depended on the will of the real
master - the colonial centre.
In our case, the real master, or the centre, is
positioned in the heart of the EU, the cradle of
European integration, whilst Eastern Europe is an
under-developed periphery under the rule of a centre
which realises the nature of its particular legislative
projects and is changing the status of these countries
according to its present interests. Instead, a more
appropriate analysis of this integration was described
by the American dissident, Noam Chomsky, in his book
'What Uncle Sam Really Wants.' This is the process of
re-activating colonial relations between Western and
Eastern Europe. The West and Eastern Europe were, in the
past, involved in semi-colonial relations. The Russian
opposition and her refusal to play in accordance with
the rules of the West were the reasons for the
beginnings of the Cold War. According to Chomsky, the
defeat of Moscow during the Cold War would re-activate
the semi-colonial status of Eastern Europe.
The Western Balkans
The Balkans are part of the joint European Economic
space, just like the rest of Eastern Europe. The wars of
Washingtonian plutocracy in these territories during the
nineties are not wars against the EU and European
integration, but they are indeed wars against Europe.
During the aggression against Serbia in 1999, Tony Blair
wrote in his article 'The New Generation Marks The
Line', that here we have the new form of war in which we
are fighting for new values, for the new
internationalism in which the brutal repression of
ethnic groups would no longer be tolerated.
If we ignore the hypocrital attitudes about the
"repression of ethnic groups" which "will not be
tolerated," it is clear that he was speaking about the
war which brings new values, new internationalism; this
time from the West and its globalist vision. The
aggression accelerated the process of globalisation
itself, and the promoter of this process in Europe is
the European Union.
Consequently, the military presence and guardian of
globalization and trilateralism - the USA - is securing
the economic power of the European centre. This centre
successfully realised its domination of ex-Yugoslavian
territory during the eighties, before it succeeded in
any other Eastern European country. Using the weakness
of the country and the impotence of the political
pseudo-elite to find solutions to the political,
economic and military crisis, the EU (or, during that
period, the European Economic Community) used its own
dictates to install globalist politicians within the
governing institutions of the former Yugoslav republics,
including Serbia, and to start the new phase of
development - the creation of the multhi-ethnic states
in the ruins of Yugoslavia. The EU still does not have
enough courage or political will to begin this
experiment in other, more stable, countries of Eastern
Europe, and because of that it is realising these dreams
in the most undeveloped part of its economic domain: the
former Yugoslavia (or, in EU terminology, the'Western
Balkans').
We can now ask this question: is it possible for the EU
to have an anti-European agenda? Maybe this question
would seem absurd to the average European, but it is not
absurd to us with the experience of having lived in the
proto-mondialist creation of Yugoslavia. In fact our own
experiences are putting that question to us and gives us
an answer full of arguments.
What was the nature of the political agenda of the
Socialist Republic of Serbia or Socialist Yugoslavia?
Did it have a Serbian or anti-Serbian agenda? In the
eighties, when most of our people were still dreaming
their Yugoslav dream, it was absurd even to mention this
kind of question. Today, we all know the answers and
they are more than tragic.
The mondialism and multhi-ethnicity are by their own
essence anti-national in the same way as proleterian
internationalism and its practical realisation in the
form of Yugoslavism or Sovietism. In the same way
Belgrade was experimenting with the creation of
artificial nations in Yugoslavia, in Macedonia,
Montenegro and Bosnia (including the invention of
'muslim' nation in Bosnia which is a unique example in
the world as far as establishing a nation with an
exclusive religious base is concerned), and offering
maximum autonomy to the Albanians in Kosovo -- and in
all these cases in the less developed southern parts of
the country which were under the full authority of
Belgrade and didn't represent any challenge to the
authority of the centre, which wasn't the case with
north-western developed republics (Slovenia and
Croatia).
Similar to this, today Brussels is beginning experiments
in the most backward part of its own economic space in
an attempt to pose as a bigger Catholic than the Pope
himself (or, in translation: a bigger mondialist than
its own master and ideological model on the other side
of the Atlantic Ocean). These proletarian and
internationalist experiments, together with the
experiments of creating new nations, ended with the most
tragic consequences for their creators in Moscow and
Belgrade. From Chechnia and Moldavia to Kosovo and
Bosnia we saw the final results of 'the successful
solution to the national question in communist
countries.'
In the future we will see similar results of these
solutions which are now proposed by Brussels in
resolving the problems of multhi-ethnical or
multi-cultural communities. The new internationalism of
Tony Blair is no less a danger than the old one of the
Communist International, and again the biggest victims
will be the objects of the new multhi-ethnic experiments
- the people of the Balkans, but also the people in
other European multi-ethnic (or multi-racial) regions.
Sasha Papovic. Remember Our Serbian Brothers
Sasha Papovic. A Serbian View of America: Ernst Zundel and American
Stalinism
назад
