Why It Should Matter

I have a new post up on Barely a Blog, run by the brilliant Ilana Mercer. (Ilana is a terrific writer, superb researcher and a classical liberal par excellence; if you're not a fan of hers, you should be.)

If you want to help others understand why what is happening in the Balkans matters in the grand scheme of things, I've laid it out there, in 700 words or less. I can expand upon just about anything in there, at great length - but that's the gist of it.

As for the why and wherefore, my theory is that it's all about power. As Robert Higgs has documented, the U.S. government has a history of claiming more powers for itself in times of emergency. Not surprisingly, that ends up resulting in a constant state of emergency, with government authority approaching infinity.

Now apply that to the international stage. The Cold War is over, the rules you once agreed upon to constrain your rival (who vanished almost overnight) are now constraining you, and you need to find a new cause to justify your dream of a "benevolent global hegemony". So you find (and just in case, instigate and stoke) a brutal civil war somewhere prominent, which gives you a pretext to posture at white-knighting, and get rid of those pesky laws and rules in the process.

If that happens to replicate the policies of Hitler 50 years prior - who's going to notice? Your people only know Hollywood history anyway. If you can declare your targets the Nazis Reborn, adding insult to injury, so much the better. All for the sake of bringing about the desired End of History...

People who dismiss American exceptionalism don't realize that it actually does exist - albeit not in the way its proponents would appreciate. This may well be the first hegemon in world history that self-destructs by dismantling the underlying principles of its own hegemony, because they are considered inconvenient. The proverbial cutting the branch one's posterior rests upon, as it were.

Humanitarian Intervention - Isn't

The edition of RT's "Crosstalk" that was taped Monday morning was shown last night, and is up on RT's website today.

While I don't have much to say about Ian Williams' boilerplate interventionism, I found myself intrigued by some of the arguments of Isa Blumi. Of course I find the claim that the Empire was somehow in cahoots with Milosevic absolutely preposterous; if that was collaboration, what's hostility like?

Blumi also argued that dictators who can quash dissent quickly aren't picked as targets of "humanitarian" bombs. If true, this would greatly undermine the case for interventionism , since by implication, the Empire isn't noble and caring but rather coldly opportunistic, and only picks safe victims for its self-righteous knight-errantry.Which, of course, tracks with everything I've argued over the years.

However, Blumi's argument founders on the shoal of Kosovo. Milosevic actually had the KLA crushed, not once but twice - in 1997, and again in 1998. The first time it was resurrected by Germany's BND, and the second time the US intervened to save it, by sending Holbrooke to treat with the KLA. Holbrooke, Talbott, Norris, and others have outright confessed that this wasn't about the Albanians at all, or even about breaking Serbia (which did figure into the equation, mind you), but all about establishing dominion in the Balkans and keeping Russia out and down.

Interventionists would have us believe they are knights-errant riding around the world bombing "bad guys" and "liberating" their people from "tyranny." Spare me. They are in it for their own purposes - often for natural resources, but always for power.

And no one, not Williams, not Blumi, not any of the US and EU diplomats, not Blair's chief spin-doctor Alistair Campbell (currently on the blood-drenched payroll of Crime Minister Thaci) has ever managed to explain how "protecting and saving" people is accomplished by killing them.

"We had to destroy the village to save it," an American soldier famously quipped to a reporter in Vietnam.
Well, that's why you lost.

And There Was Blood

On September 16, exactly forty days after their July fiasco, KFOR and EULEX confirmed their outlaw status by repeating the attempt to seize two "border crossings" between occupied Kosovo and the rest of Serbia. Tasked with peacekeeping under UN resolution 1244, the only document making their presence in the province even resemble something legal, both organizations chose to place themselves into the service of Hashim Thaci and his "independent state of Kosova".

As in 1999, they thought it would be easy: they show up with overwhelming force, string barbed wire across the road, install Thaci's "customs agents" and prevent any Serb traffic in or out of the province until they recognize the occupation government. They did not expect resistance. They did not expect the local Serbs, betrayed and abandoned by the government in Belgrade, to block the "peackepeers" in turn - with trucks, concrete blocks, earthen berms, and even their own bodies.

For eleven days, KFOR and the Serbs faced off. KFOR would tear down a Serb barricade, only to find a new one built to replace it. German and American troops - together in a mission of repressing Serbs, how ironic - threatened to shoot, but never dared. Until this morning, when they did.

They claim "self-defense." Sure they do. They claim it was the Serbs' fault. Sure they would. Isn't it always? Yes, by all means blame the local population for refusing to submit to an illegal occupation and its illegal blockade, harassment and repression. Keep in mind that those Serbs who use the Albanian checkpoints routinely get arrested, beaten, or have their vehicles impounded or destroyed - yet KFOR and EULEX do nothing. So much for the U.S. and NATO standing for "freedom". Yes, "freedom" is when you get the right to do as you're told, and nothing else. Dare refuse, and you become a "rogue."

Here is something the "repressive, lawless military occupation force" (in the words of former UNMIK official Gerard Gallucci, an American) doesn't seem to understand: they are up against the people who have nothing to lose but their lives. The fact that they decided to stay and defend their homes, facing down the Albanians, KFOR and even the betrayal of their own government - well, the quislings in Belgrade anyway - ought to indicate these people will not surrender. As did the barricades and the sit-ins.

Serbs passing a cabbage dish to a German soldier at Jarinje, September 18, 2011

Last week, the Serbs at that very barricade shared their food with the German occupiers, in an act of good will. Today, that was repaid with bullets.

KFOR claims it was targeted by "pipe bombs." Amateur Serbs, reporting from the area as they have for the past two months, say the locals used clumps of dirt, rocks and "cheerleader flares" (sparklers used at soccer games). Those are not "pipe bombs." And unarmed people facing off heavily armed troops is not a "clash," but a massacre waiting to happen. KFOR also lied about using rubber bullets. Video evidence clearly shows live ammo.

Apparently it was Americans who opened fire. How ironic. They've effectively changed sides from 70 years ago, assisting Germans and proud heirs of Hitler's allies against their own historical ally.

If you think my invocation of WW2 is improper, consider this: one of the Serbs detained this morning - prior to the shooting - protested (see source account here) his treatment to KFOR by saying that "it's beginning to look like Auschwitz around here" (referring, presumably, to thick barbed wire and armed German guards). KFOR's response was, "Not yet. We don't have gas chambers for you."

For shame, KFOR. If you still have any.

UPDATE (17:30 EDT): I just spoke to RT about the events. Not sure when the video will be available.
Again, these weren't "clashes". This wasn't KFOR acting in "self-defense." It was KFOR being the muscle for Hashim Thaci's illegal government, abusing the population that protested in a peaceful and civilized manner. In 1999, KFOR stood idly by as KLA rampaged across the province, driving hundreds of thousands out and burning their homes and churches. In 2004, KFOR stood by again, letting Thaci's followers expel and burn out thousands more. Now KFOR is assisting Thaci openly, and to what end? Hoping that these last Serbs either submit to Thaci's thug "state", or pack up and leave?

Some "democracy." Some "freedom." Some "law and order."

Odds and Ends

I've been too busy to sit down and write a proper follow-up to Showdown, so this will have to suffice.


KFOR and EULEX found themselves outmaneuvered last weekend, as the local Serbs built roadblocks of logs, trucks, earth and even concrete, sealing them off at the two "customs posts" (Jarinje, Brnjak). They also sealed off the routes leading into the northern part of Kosovo from the Albanian-occupied south. While this has had the effect of seriously impeding their own supply, they've effectively disabled KFOR traffic. I can't imagine the occupiers are happy about this, but there's little they can do without appearing extremely heavy-handed. They may try, of course, and spin it as peacekeeping - but in the era of viral videos, can they really risk it?

It is worth noting that the Empire operates on the idiotic assumption that the Serbs in Kosovo are being directed from Belgrade somehow, or that the quisling government there can command them. Having become used to astroturf behavior of their Balkans allies and proxies, they can't imagine a genuine grassroots protest.

The truth, however, is that Belgrade has no control of the situation in north Kosovo, and may be rapidly losing control over the rest of Serbia as well. The reason the minister in charge of police is objecting to the October 2 "Belgrade Pride" is not that he hates homosexuals, but that he's mortally afraid of his police refusing orders and defecting. Once that happens, the government can kiss its quisling posterior goodbye.

In other news, Senator Marco Riubio (R-Fla.) said in a recent speech that the U.S. military  has been "one of the greatest forces of good," because they "stopped Nazism and Communism and other evils such as Serbian ethnic cleansing.” I wanted to put together a rebuttal of this nonsense, but Julia Gorin beat me to it. I would like to add, though, that the lion's share of credit for stopping the Nazis should go to the Soviets; that the U.S. armed forces did precisely nothing to defeat Communism; and that putting "Serbian ethnic cleansing" on par with Nazism is a heinous insult for all the victims of Nazi aggression - which includes the Serbs.

Also, does that mean only Serbian "ethnic cleansing" is bad, while everyone else's is virtuous? For example, that committed by Croats, or Albanians, which the U.S. armed forces have actually sponsored? It certainly seems that way. Why else would the Wall Street Journal publish editorials by such luminaries of humanitarianism as Hashim "Snake" Thaci, leader of the terrorist KLA and the current prime minister of the so-called independent Kosovo, Julia Gorin asks.

Meanwhile, I did manage to write up a quick look at the Palestinian Authority campaign to declare statehood and request recognition by the UN, which was posted on Ilana Mercer's Barely a Blog. I've been reading Ilana's stuff for years; she's a fantastic writer and excellent researcher, who just published a very interesting book on South Africa and I am grateful to have the opportunity to guest-post on her blog

Right now I'm working on a column for Antiwar.com, and preparing to make an appearance on RT's Crosstalk. Sleep? What's that?

Showdown

Forty days after being defeated by the local Serb community, the Empire and its KLA allies are at it again, seeking to set up "Kosovo customs" at two checkpoints facing inner Serbia. As in July, official Belgrade refuses to fight - but it won't do the spineless quislings any good. Having decided that the government set over them - I'm deliberately not saying "their government" - is in manifest dereliction of its most basic duty, the Serbs are organizing and defending themselves.

However much they prefer to live in a virtual reality constructed out of their own (and Imperial) propaganda, the quislingocracy in Belgrade cannot help but notice this development - and panic. That fear was stoked yesterday when Russia's ambassador, Alexander Konuzin, stood up at a pro-NATO conference in Belgrade (the fact that one was being held at all illustrates the depths of the government's depravity) and angrily rebuked the audience for fiddling while their country was being put to the torch. His exhortation, "Are there no Serbs here?" has already gone viral, and Konuzin Fan Clubs are popping up all over the social networks.

I spoke to RT this morning (video at the end) about the situation in Kosovo. These aren't "clashes", but an organized effort by the terrorist regime in Pristina to impose its writ on the last Serb enclave still holding out, with full knowledge, help and support of the NATO "peacekeepers" and the EU "law and order" mission. Though "terrorist" is a worn-out buzzword by now, it really fits here. The "government" in Pristina is basically the KLA, by any reasonable standard a terrorist organization, which has not only terrorized the province's Serbs and other non-Albanians, but also the very Albanians it purports to represent, both prior to the NATO invasion in 1999 and ever since. It also stands accused, by both a credible investigator and Empire's own Inquisitors, of trafficking in narcotics, weapons, slaves, sex slaves, and human organs (forcibly harvested from captives no less). How dare these people talk about "law and order"? How dare NATO, the foremost international outlaw?

The 78-day air terror campaign, intended to seize Kosovo from Serbia, ended when the Yugoslav government at the time signed an armistice with NATO (which the Alliance promptly violated). The UN Security Council approved the armistice and passed Resolution 1244, authorizing NATO occupation of Kosovo but guaranteeing the sovereignty of Serbia. That resolution has been systematically violated by NATO ever since, culminating in the 2008 "declaration of independence" by the KLA "government."

In March this year, almost twelve years to the date from NATO's attack on then-Yugoslavia, the Security Council passed Resolution 1973, authorizing the Alliance to set up a "no-fly zone" over Libya. NATO proceeded to bomb Libya instead, and offer direct support to the anti-government "rebels" there, in a reprise of 1999. If 1244 was a fig leaf for naked aggression, 1973 was a condom used in casual rape. Forgive me if I don't take the notion of "law" coming from these people very seriously.

For the third time in a hundred years, German troops are occupying Serbian soil. The first time they came in 1915, and were sent packing three years later. The second time, in 1941, they lingered for four. This time, it has been twelve and counting. Perhaps they think the Serbs have finally been broken. The quisling regime in Belgrade certainly does. They are both very much mistaken.

I wonder if the NATO troops facing the Serbs this evening realize their predicament. They aren't up against "illegal and criminal elements," but against an entire people, who value freedom - the actual thing, not Empire's buzzword - far more than their lives. There is exactly one Balkans nation that has faced down every invader and would-be conqueror over the centuries, and emerged from the struggle triumphant (however bloodied and bruised) every time. It is behind those barricades. KFOR is in front of them. If those assorted lackeys of Empire have any sense at all... they should be somewhere else.

Once More About the "Belgrade Pride"

Last year, the corrupt, contemptible regime in Serbia sent six thousand police to occupy downtown Belgrade, so a handful of Imperial politicians, local quislings, professional activists and their foreign guests (including a prominent Dutch pedophile) could parade down the city's main avenue. One of the participants, Predrag Azdejkovic, boasted about taking Belgrade's "anal virginity".

The general citizenry reacted to the "Pride Parade" with cold contempt. Many who went forth to oppose it directly chose to do so peacefully, as part of Church processions, which were blocked and harassed by the police. Others chose to assault the police cordon directly. The government reveled in branding them "thugs and hooligans," conducting mass arrests and show trials, and arguing that Serbia needed more of its "reforms" in order to become "civilized."

Make no mistake, though: the riots of 10-10-10 were anti-government, not anti-gay.

In the past two decades, Serbia has been blockaded, bombed, and dismembered by the Empire, then lootedby the repressive and treacherous regime while being dismembered some more. Once an exporter of food, Serbia now has people rummaging through garbage for leftovers. The government callously disregards the Constitution and other laws, gerrymanders election results, mocks the democratic process and routinely insults its citizens' intelligence. It aids and abets ethnic and religious separatism within the country, while systematically suppressing or subverting any expression of Serbian identity, faith, culture or tradition. To ask for "gay rights" in such circumstances, when there are hardly any rights at all, is simply perverse.

We are told it isn't easy to be gay (or lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, whatnot - though these groups have very little overlap between themselves, and are only lumped together because they define themselves by their alternate sexuality) in Serbia. That is true. But it isn't easy to be anyone in Serbia, unless one is somehow associated with the government.

Therein's the problem: the "GLBT" activists - not the folks who wish to enjoy life with their sexual partners, but those people who get paid (by foreign foundations, as well as Serbian taxpayer money) to be victimized homo/trans/alt-sexuals - are in fact in bed with the government. The 2011 "Pride," scheduled for October 2, isn't about anyone's rights, human or otherwise - it's about privileges for these professional victims, and further empowerment of the government, at the expense of Serbia.

One cannot demand tolerance from others, while being intolerant. Acceptance needs to be earned. If the alt-sexuals spoke up against government abuses of the law and the citizenry, that would certainly advance the tolerance and acceptance of them among the general population. But no - instead, they align themselves with the government considerably responsible for the present reprehensible state of affairs. By doing this, and taking the government's coin, the professional alt-sexuals are doing their constituency a colossal disservice. So while the advocates get to keep getting money for fighting the problem they are themselves making worse, the ordinary alt-sexuals - who presumably just want to live in peace - are being manipulated to serve the corrupt regime, instead of joining forces with the oppressed Serbs and thus earning acceptance and tolerance.

In effect, the alt-sexuals are being set up as the lightning rod for the disaffected citizenry. The Pride is the government's way of telling the jobless, the hungry and the humiliated, "Eat cake." It's an insult, as much as anything this government has done for the past 3 years (and parts of it before then). There is a general understanding among the populace that the alt-sexuals aren't the real enemy, but only a cat's-paw of the government. That won't make it any easier to swallow the insult, however. It is very likely there will be violence come October 2, once again aimed against the government, once again manipulated by it to justify further repression, further abuses and further insults.

Now, in the struggle between the current government and the Serbian people, my money is on the latter. Furthermore, I am willing to wager that most alt-sexuals think the same way: last year, most of them wanted nothing to do with the parade. But that's not enough - they are still tolerating the hijacking of their interests by professional activists and the government. If alt-sexuals of Serbia want to earn acceptance, they will have to fight alongside the general populace, for the rights of all and not just their own.

(Updated to clarify a point in paragraph 7)

9/11

I remember that Tuesday morning the way I remember much of the Bosnian War: in vivid detail. The confusion, the shock, the horror of the burning and crumbling towers, the pillar of black smoke coming from the Pentagon. But the world didn't stop turning. And nothing actually changed that day.

Within weeks, the man who got into the Oval Office on a promise of a "more humble foreign policy" had launched a war without end. Except that the "War on terror(ism)" was lost before it began. U.S. policymakers have persisted in believing their own myth about the "good" terrorists (i.e. ones they could control) versus the "bad" ones (the ones that would attack America), no matter how much the terrorists themselves blurred that line, repeatedly. They even begged jihadists to like them (again)!

Eventually, the "War on Terror" became a "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism", a term signifying precisely nothing. Instead of fighting fear and terror, the Empire unleashed them upon the world. The discrepancies between reality and fantasy were discounted through perception management. The 2006 mockumentary "Borat" was supposed to have been a comedy. But when the title character enthuses about the "war of terror", it wasn't funny. It rang true.

Seven years after that fateful Tuesday, the American public knew it wasn't really involved in a war on terrorism any more, only in the protracted and pointless occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but was nonetheless invaded). The man who promised Hope and Change promised to end those wars. He hasn't delivered.

In May this year, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was killed in Pakistan. If the official version of events is to be believed (so many lies have been told about the wars, it's hard to believe anything any more), he was taken out by Seal Team Six, a special forces unit. The question that begs to be asked is, couldn't something like that have been done in the first place, without two full-scale invasions and a bunch of proxy wars? Instead, bin Laden's alleged purpose - to bleed America dry in the sands of the Muslim world - seems to have been achieved, all right.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist (I'm more interested in conspiracy facts). Nor do I believe for a second that everything would have been just fine had America not "provoked" the jihadists, as some well-meaning folks think. Jihad isn't some benevolent ideology of spiritual self-fulfillment, but a religious commandment to perpetrate violence upon the infidel. Many people who call themselves Christians may not take the commandments of their faith very seriously. Rest assured, many Muslims do. The real error was believing that jihad could be harnessed, controlled and directed to achieve a strategic purpose. That belief was wrong in 1978, it was wrong in 2001, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong tomorrow.

It isn't quite right to say that nothing has changed since that Tuesday, ten years ago. While the government, and the thinking behind it, has remained much the same (though a different faction is in power; that ought to suggest a few things, by itself), the United States of America isn't the same country any more. I have trouble recognizing it, and I've witnessed the transformation, gradual as it was.

Whether things keep getting worse, or some day take a turn for the better, there is no going back. Panta rei.