15.10.1998

Kosova stitch-up

Imperialist ‘peace’ overrides national rights

The crisis over Kosova seems to be over, at least for the present. After weeks of steadily mounting threats of Nato military attack, the Serb leadership agreed to take part in talks over autonomy for the rebel province, following negotiations with US emissary Richard Holbrooke in Belgrade.

They also agreed to allow 2,000 international monitors to police the area to ensure unhindered access for aid agencies. This is supposed to allow the 300,000 Kosovar refugees currently living in the hills to return to their homes - those that still exist, that is, after the deliberate destruction and looting of Albanian property. Far from ensuring self-determination for Kosova - which in current circumstances can only mean national independence - the agreement provides just for “discussions” over autonomy within the state of Serbia.

Bourgeois politicians, backed by their mouthpieces in the press, described this apparent submission by Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic as “a big climb-down”, or, as The Sun put it, “Butcher Milosevic caves in”. The agreement between Nato and Serbia is presented in the more serious papers as the triumph of tough diplomacy backed by the ‘credible threat of force’. The US continues to assert its right to intervene against any people whose leadership refuses to conform to its wishes. The ‘credible threat’ reached a climax on Sunday, when the fleet of 430 aircraft took up position ready to attack Serbia from their air bases in Italy and Britain. Six B52 bombers were shown on TV arriving at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. Milosevic was no doubt meant to remember that it was from Fairford that US planes took off in April 1986 to attack Libya. These B52s also have the ability to launch cruise missiles.

If the current news reports are to be believed, this expensive moving of military hardware around the world achieved its objective without the need to fire a single Tomahawk, although the foreign ministers of the 16 Nato countries on Monday night signed the “activation order”, which gives US generals, led by supreme commander Wesley Clark, official permission to attack Serbia if they feel Milosevic has gone back on his word. Given Milosevic’s well-known skill at political manoeuvring, the cooling of the crisis obviously has less to do with his promises than with the calculations of US political leaders. They have decided that action against Serbia, despite the popularity boost it might provide for Clinton and the clamour for Nato to ‘prove its credibility’, is not a good idea at present.

The collapse of bureaucratic socialism has given rise to new problems for imperialism. The meltdown in the former Yugoslavia has produced instability, interfering with the exploitation of new workforces and the opening up of new markets. The imperialists do not make their demands against Serbia because they want to ensure Kosovar rights. Far from it. Their fear is that continuing violence in Kosova might ignite the whole region, further threatening capitalist interests. But the Kosovars are certain to reject a settlement which leaves Serbia in control. The international ‘peace’ force is just as likely to side with Milosevic as the Kosovar Liberation Army, if, as seems probable, it continues to fight for its rights.

The end of the Cold War should at least have ended the danger of nuclear destruction. But Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov’s threat to side with Serbia, however unrealistic it may have been, demonstrates that we are still living in a dangerously unstable world. The imperialists cannot yet be sure of always getting their own way.

How has the ‘official communist’ left in Britain reacted to the events in Kosova? The Morning Star concentrates on reporting the Russian position, of “issuing a tough warning to the west not to unleash Nato air strikes against Yugoslavia” (October 5). This automatic siding with Russia would seem to be a bizarre hangover from the days when the paper was funded by the USSR and spoke for it. The Morning Star is not explicit about Russia’s motives for opposing military intervention against Serbia. But The Independent explains how they extend “well beyond Moscow’s traditional solidarity with fellow Slavs” (October 8). The real reason for opposition to Nato by both Russia and China is that it paves the way for interference within their own territory. They are, says The Independent,

“alarmed by a threatened use of force by the alliance on what is internationally recognised internal territory of a sovereign country. If Kosovo today, then why not any Russian republic where nationalist insurrection could erupt?”

In its editorial the Morning Star suggests: “Instead of air strikes, political leaders should be fostering talks between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians to agree a solution based on Serbia’s territorial integrity and substantial autonomy for Kosovo.” This is in fact exactly what the US hopes to achieve, even if it has to drop a few bombs on Belgrade to bring it about. But it is a disgraceful position for so-called ‘communists’ to adopt. We stand for the rights not of states, but of nations - ie, for people, not lines on a map. Unlike the capitalists, workers have no interests in protecting the “integrity” of states, which are conveniently stable units for exploitation. We advocate the greatest possible unity between peoples, but say that this should be voluntary, not based on coercion. So we are champions of the right of nations to self-determination, up to and including secession from the state or states to which they belong and the formation of a new state. The classic Marxist definition of a nation is “a historically evolved, stable community of people which formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture” (JV Stalin SW Vol 2, Moscow 1953, p307). By this definition the Albanians of Kosova are a nation and we must support their right to secede. The Morning Star is correct to point out that in the Balkans, for historical reasons, national entities straddle many borders. Needless to say, these borders are largely artificial, created by the ebb and flow of imperial occupation, along with its various ‘defining’ influences - of religion, culture and language. The south Slavs have never been able to form a strong, unified nation-state - with the partial exception of Tito’s Yugoslavia.

But in present conditions the way to lessen tensions is not to reinforce state boundaries, but to allow nations to determine the path of their own development.

The New Worker, paper of the Kim Jong-ilist New Communist Party, is even more unprincipled than the Morning Star. It sides totally with the Serb government, innocently pointing out that it “has not invaded foreign soil: it is simply defending the sovereignty and integrity of its own state” (October 9). That is what Britain has been doing to Northern Ireland for the last 30 years. It then makes the sickening claim that the KLA “is backed by imperialism and serves the interests of foreign governments (including British imperialism), who aim to dominate the region by encouraging separatism and reactionary nationalism” (like the IRA?). Even if it were true that the KLA were funded by western interests, the right of Kosova to self-determination remains unaffected. The New Worker, even more than the Morning Star, transposes the rhetoric and politics of the Cold War era to current conditions. Its support for Serbia reflects its belief that the former Yugoslavia - even Milosevic’s rump - was and is a bastion of working class power. These ‘official communists’ look not to the world working class to fight imperialism, but to a ‘power from on high’ - even one as meagre as Serbia - and in so doing excuse the vilest oppression.

The line of The Socialist, the paper of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, is far more principled, but programmatically incoherent for all that. It condemns the atrocities in Kosova and “the brutal capitalist clique that rules in Belgrade”, calling for the creation of a “strong, independent workers’ and peasants’ militia” to fight the secessionist war and “make links with independent workers’ organisations in Serbia” (October 9). It continues: “Socialists advocate a socialist Kosova, as part of a socialist confederation of Balkan states on a free, equal, and voluntary basis. This has nothing in common with the former Stalinist Yugoslavia.” This is a very desirable outcome, but is an abstraction in the face of the Kosovars’ actual plight. They should not have to wait for socialism in order to overcome national oppression. It is incorrect to pose such a federation as an immediate demand (socialism belongs to the maximum, not minimum programme). Unity can only be achieved through the voluntary coming together of peoples, and cannot be achieved in circumstances of bloody slaughter.

Communists unequivocally support the right of nations to self-determination, including the right to secede, and the need for international solidarity of the workers, irrespective of nationality, in united proletarian organisations. We recognise that solidarity of workers across state boundaries cannot be won by force, and advocate peaceful and democratic secession as opposed to any kind of coercive or violent maintenance of unity. However, we insist that in all situations the national question must be solved by the people themselves. We are utterly opposed to all intervention by Nato or other imperialist bodies, whether or not in an ostensibly peace-keeping role.

We say no to Nato aggression in Serbia, and demand full independence for Kosova.

Mary Godwin