Some commentators below persist in the wierd characterization of
Milosevic as a 'dicator' when REMEMBER he was VOTED out of office.
The d. word could be applied to half a the fascist client states (aka
colonies), but the corporate media don't focus on democracy (or lack)
there--amazing.
of the US wcm
>
> FWD: Noam Chomsky on Milosevic Ouster / Oct 12
>
> (Note: this commentary was a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of
> Z/ZNet.To learn more about the project and join
> folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org or the ZNet
> Sustainer Pages at
> http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm)
>
> ====
>
>
> Comments on the Milosevic Ouster, etc.
> By Noam Chomsky
>
> A number of people in the ZNet forum system and elsewhere
> have raised questions about the prominent role they see
> assigned to US-NATO in the flood of commentary on recent
> events in Yugoslavia, "gloating over the victory of the
> opposition in Yugoslavia--as if that affirms the NATO
> bombing" (as one puts it). Others have noticed a similar
> focus with an opposite emphasis: denunciations of US
> violence and subversion for the overthrow of an independent
> Serb government in favor of Western clients. I've been asked
> for my own reaction. What follows is an amalgam of several
> responses.
>
> It's surely right that publicly the Clinton-Blair
> administrations are "gloating" over the outcome, and that
> the usual cheerleaders are doing their duty as well. That is
> commonly the case whatever the outcome. But we should not
> overlook the fact that more serious observers -- as
> anti-Milosevic as you can find -- are telling quite a
> different story. For example, the senior news analyst of
> UPI, Martin Sieff, described the outcome of the election as
> "an unpleasant shock to both incumbent Slobodan Milosevic
> and the Clinton administration (Sept. 25), pointing out that
> Kostunica "regularly denounces the NATO bombing of
> Yugoslavia last year as `criminal'," "implacably opposes
> having Milosevic or any other prominent Serb tried as a war
> criminal," and worse still from the Clinton-Blair point of
> view, "does appear to accurately express the democratic
> aspirations of the Serbian people."
>
> That's correct across the board, and Sieff is not alone in
> reporting it. In his campaign throughout the country and on
> state TV, Kostunica "condemned "NATO's criminal bombing of
> Yugoslavia" and denounced the International Criminal
> Tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY) as "an American tribunal --
> not a court, but a political instrument" (Steven Erlanger
> and Carlotta Gall, NYT, Sept. 21). Speaking on state TV
> after taking office, he reiterated that while he sought
> normalization of relations with the West, "the crimes during
> the NATO aggression, nor the war damages, could not be
> forgotten," and he again described the ICTY as a "tool of
> political pressure of the US administration" (Oct 5, 6).
>
> In the British press, some prominent (and bitterly
> anti-Milosevic) correspondents have pointed out that "The
> West's self-satisfaction cannot disguise the reality of the
> Balkans...it was not the bombing, the sanctions and the
> posturing of NATO politicians" that got rid of Milosevic.
> Rather "he was toppled by a self-inflicted, democratic
> miscalculation," and if anything his fall was impeded by
> Western intervention: the rotten situation in the Balkans
> "has been made worse by intervention,... NATO's actions
> escalated the nastiness, prolonged the resolution and
> increased the cost." "At the very least, outsiders such as
> [British Foreign Secretary] Mr Cook should stop rewriting
> history to their own gain. They did not topple Mr Milosevic.
> They did not bomb democracy into the last Communist
> dictatorship in Europe. They merely blocked the Danube and
> sent Serb politics back to the Dark Ages of autocracy. It
> was not sanctions that induced the army to switch sides;
> generals did well from the black market. The fall of Mr
> Milosevic began with an election that he called and then
> denied, spurring the electors to demand that the army
> respect their decision and protect their sovereignty. For
> that, Yugoslavia's democracy deserves the credit, not Nato's
> Tomahawk missiles" (Simon Jenkins, London Times, Oct. 7).
> "The kind of people who made last Thursday's revolution"
> were those who were "depressed in equal measure by the
> careless savagery of the Nato bombing and the sheer
> nastiness of the Milosevic regime" (John Simpson, world
> affairs editor of BBC, Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 8).
>
> Serb dissidents, to the extent that their voices are heard
> here, are saying pretty much the same thing. In a fairly
> typical comment on BBC, a Belgrade university student said:
> "We did it on our own. Please do not help us again with your
> bombs." Reaffirming these conclusions, a correspondent for
> the opposition daily Blic writes that "Serbs felt oppressed
> by their regime from the inside and by the West from the
> outside; she condemns the US for having "ignored the
> democratic movement in Yugoslavia and failing to aid
> numerous Serbian refugees" -- by far the largest refugee
> population in the region. A prominent dissident scholar, in
> a letter of remembrance for a leading human rights activist
> who recently died, asks whether "the ones who said they
> imposed sanctions `against Milosevic' knew or cared how they
> impoverished you and the other people like you, and turned
> our lives into misery while helping him and his smuggling
> allies to become richer and richer," enabling him to "do
> whatever he wanted"; and instead of realizing "the stupidity
> of isolating a whole nation, of tarring all the people with
> the same broad brush under the pretense that they are
> striking a blow against a tyrannical leader," are now
> saying -- self-righteously and absurdly -- "that all that is
> happening in Serbia today was the result of their wise
> policy, and their help" (Ana Trbovich, Jasmina Teodosijevic,
> Boston Globe, Oct. 8).
>
> These comments, I think, are on target. What happened was a
> very impressive demonstration of popular mobilization and
> courage. The removal of the brutal and corrupt regimes of
> Serbia and Croatia (Milosevic and Tudjman were partners in
> crime throughout) is an important step forward for the
> region, and the mass movements in Serbia -- miners,
> students, innumerable others -- merit great admiration, and
> provide an inspiring example of what united and dedicated
> people can achieve. Right now workers' committees are taking
> control of many companies and state institutions, "revolting
> against their Milosevic-era managers and taking over the
> directors' suites," as "workers took full advantage of
> Yugoslav's social ownership traditions." "With Milosevic's
> rule crumbling, the workers have taken the communist
> rhetoric literally and taken charge of their enterprises,"
> instituting various forms of "worker management" (London
> Financial Times, Oct. 11). What has taken place, and where
> it will go, is in the hands of the people of Serbia, though
> as always, international solidarity and support -- not least
> in the US -- can make a substantial difference.
>
> On the elections themselves, there is plenty of valid
> criticism: there was extensive interference by the West and
> by Milosevic's harshly repressive (but by no means
> "totalitarian") apparatus. But I think the Belgrade student
> is right: they did it on their own, and deserve plenty of
> credit for that. It's an outcome that the left should
> welcome and applaud, in my opinion.
>
> It could have happened before. There is good reason to take
> seriously the judgment of Balkans historian Miranda Vickers
> (again, as anti-Milosevic as they come) that Milosevic would
> have been ousted years earlier if the Kosovar Albanians had
> voted against him in 1992 (they were hoping he would win,
> just as they did this September). And the mass popular
> demonstrations after opposition victories in local elections
> in 1996 might have toppled him if the opposition hadn't
> fractured. Milosevic was bad enough, but nothing like the
> rulers of totalitarian states, or the murderous gangsters
> the US has been placing and keeping in power for years all
> over the world.
>
> But ridding the country of Milosevic doesn't in itself
> herald a final victory for the people of Serbia, who are
> responsible for the achievement. There's plenty of
> historical evidence to the contrary, including very recent
> evidence. It's hard to think of a more spectacular recent
> achievement than the overthrow of South Africa's Apartheid
> horror, but the outcome is far from delightful, as Patrick
> Bond has been documenting impressively on ZNet, and as is
> obvious even to the observer or visitor with limited
> information. The US and Europe will doubtless continue their
> (to an extent, competing) efforts to incorporate Serbia
> along with the rest of the Balkans into the Western-run
> neoliberal system, with the cooperation of elite elements
> that will benefit by linkage to Western power and with the
> likely effects of undermining independent economic
> development and functioning democracy, and harming a good
> part (probably considerable majority) of the population,
> with the countries expected to provide cheap human and
> material resources and markets and investment opportunities,
> subordinated to Western power interests. Serious struggles
> are barely beginning, as elsewhere.
>