The Shame of a Nation

Vice-President Biden's recent trip to Serbia was a mixed bag overall. On the one hand, his willingness to repair relations with the badly-abused Serbian people shows a dramatic shift in policy. On the other, his refusal to validate their claims over their stolen territory of Kosovo was very disappointing.

The former Yugoslavia has been a pawn in international political and economic power struggles since the death of Marshal Tito. Under the guise of preventing a civil war, international interests rushed into Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia and held the Serbians out from reunifying their countries. Globalist puppet governments were erected and phony allegations of genocide against the Serbs soon followed.

What these international interests really wanted was unrestricted access to the Adriatic ports. Halliburton and other criminal enterprises had their eyes on the oil-rich Ploesti Oil Fields. The recalcitrant Serbia still posed an obstacle; hence the Kosovo 'Crisis' was created.

Employing patently false stories of genocide as a pretext; the US and other governments rallied behind the al-Qaeda-funded Kosovo Liberation Army. General Wesley Clark led a campaign against the defenceless Serbians, intentionally targeting civilians to terrorise the Serbian populace into submission. Kosovo was 'liberated' at the cost of thousands of civilian lives, but at enormous financial profit for Halliburton and other globalist gangsters.

It maybe argued that Clinton/Bush corruption has rendered the possibility of Yugoslav Reunification impossible, and that may have been the approach Biden was taking. Still, the issue should be reopened as to how to make amends with a clearly wronged nation.

Eric,

  Don't you believe in self-determination? Whatever the motives of various governments may have been for supporting Kosovo's independence, the clear fact is that the overwhelming majority of people living in that territory do not want it to be part of Serbia. I believe that most people in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia likewise want those regions to be politically independent of Serbia, and I think those wishes should be respected.

  In the larger picture, decentralism is a good thing. We should be seeking the existence of more countries, not fewer. Fewer countries generally means more powerful governments controlling vaster areas and being less accountable to the individuals living in the areas under their control, which is contrary to the aims of libertarianism. Populous and physically large countries in particular should be broken up into multiple jurisdictions, in particular the "big four" -- the United States, Russia, China and India.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

I do believe in self-determination although ironically Marshal Tito was the leading proponents of self-determination. He steered Yugoslavia out of the Soviet orbit and set up a international organisation of 'non-aligned nations' trying to break free of domination from Washington, Moscow, and Peking.

I don't know whether it's true or not that the people in those ex-Yugoslav provinces wanted to break up the federation or not; we really can never know since US/European interventionists more or less made the decision for them. They haven't been any more free or independent since Yugoslavia disintegrated; Kosovo, Slovenia and Croatia are all practically puppet-states run by Berlin; and Bosnia has been under international occupation forces since 1995.

Even if self-determination was an issue, it hardly justified fabricating stories of genocide and international bombing campaigns targeting civilians.

Eric,

  I can't really go along with calling a dictator a leading proponent of self-determination, but it's true Tito did at least take Yugoslavia out of the Soviet orbit. As for Kosovo, Slovenia and Croatia allegedly being "practically puppet-states run by Berlin," what does that mean in real-world terms? What are the criteria by which you judge a government to be a "puppet-state?" I certainly agree that self-determination doesn't justify bombing campaigns targeting civilians. Do you agree that if most people in Kosovo, or any of the other countries of the former Yugoslavia, want the regions they live in to be politically independent jurisdictions, that it should be so?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

The point here is that they are not politically independent. In Kosovo, the German Deutsche Mark is the legal currency and both Slovenia and Croatia are practically German vassal states.

--- In lpsf-discuss@...m, Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

Eric,

  I don't think using another country's currency automatically makes a country a vassal state. For a long time under the Castro regime, the U.S. dollar was used as legal currency in Cuba, but no one would have accused Castro of being a U.S. puppet. Arguably Kosovo's political independence is compromised by the presence of a large number of NATO peacekeeping troops, but less so than it would be compromised if it were occupied by Serbian troops, since the Serbian government still sees it as part of Serbia. What evidence is there that Croatia and Slovenia are practically German vassal states, or are not politically independent?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Among other things, the Kosovo Liberation Army was based in Germany where it had a 'government-in-exile' and was subsidised by the German government. Germany was one of the leaders in NATO encouraging the attacks on Serbia and deployed more military hardware to the area than anyone except the US.

Germany was the first country to recognise Slovenia and Croatia as independent states; and were among the first to rush armaments into those countries. I've read several economic reports showing that German corporate interests totally dominate the economies there and also in Bosnia.

Germany's been doing much the same thing in both Austria and the former Czecholoslovakia.

Eric,

  Those facts indicate that German governments (I use that specific language in recognition that there has been more than one different administration in Germany during this period, and that these administrations are not the same as the German people or Germany as a whole) have been supportive of political independence for countries in the Balkans, and provide evidence that the motivation for this could have been at least partly economic. But I don't see anything in what you've written below which shows any German government exercising improper political control over any of those countries. Is there any evidence of that being the case?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Admittedly I don't have any direct evidence; but it's generally a safe bet that when any foreign government actively encourages the breakup of another one, then makes the newly independent states economically and militarily dependent on them, political control is probably going on too.

Eric,

  Certainly the kind of thing you describe *has* happened -- the case of the U.S. government intervening to support the secession of Panama from Columbia, and then getting the Panamanian government to approve U.S. construction and long-term ownership of the Panama Canal comes to mind. But I can also think of instances where it hasn't happened. It doesn't seem too much of an overstatement to say that United States and European governments actively encouraged the breakup of the Soviet Union, yet I don't think any of the former Soviet captive states are politically controlled by Western governments. I believe most of them are still heavily economically engaged with Russia. Georgia might be the most dependent on European and U.S. governments, but I think Georgia's government (regime?) is only as dependent as it is because it has engaged in armed conflict with Russia over territory, and needs military support.

  Do you think that Kosovo, Croatia, etc., are economically dependent on the German *government*? Although that government may be giving them subsidies on which they depend (do you know how large such subsidies are?), I suspect that trade with Germany-based *companies* plays a much larger role in their economies than reliance on the German government. However I doubt the role of that trade looms so large that those countries would collapse or lose their independence if the German government were to suddenly implement a boycott on trade with them. They probably wouldn't be any worse off than the U.S. would be if the Chinese regime suddenly implemented such a boycott on Chinese-based companies doing business with U.S.-based companies, or China would be if the U.S. government did the reverse.

  But even if we were to take the worst-case scenario and assume that the German government is giving political marching orders to the governments of Kosovo,Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia, I think it's a safe bet that those countries have more political independence than they would have as part of a Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia. I doubt the German government's interest in controlling public policy in those countries would extend much beyond issues of trade, investment, and international affairs.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

I would disagree that ex-soviet republics aren't controlled by western governments. This has been a major issue of Putin's for several years; increasing western hegemony along Russian borders. Georgia was a good example. George Sorros bankrolled the revolution there and Halliburton immediately moved in and hijacked the economy. The 'disputed territory' (like Kosovo) had Russian-owned oil pipelines that Cheney/Halliburton intended to steal.

The same is essentially true in the former Yugoslavia. Germany and Wall Street financial interests wanted to steal the most economically viable regions of the country away from Serbian control. This wasn't out of any love for the Slovenian or Croatian peoples, it was simply to transfer wealth from Serbian to German pockets.