you knew it or not, during the Clinton years we were not
only operating under the terms of a "national emergency"
regarding the crisis in Kosovo, but Clinton
also declared 11 other "national emergencies" during
his two terms in office, enabling him to bypass Congress
on a host of issues ranging from "wilderness preservation"
(i.e. federal land grabs) to the imposition of an embargo
on Yugoslavia and the seizure of its assets in the US.
The letter gives a brief history of the various presidential
orders regarding Bosnia and Kosovo, reiterating the history
of Clinton's usurpation of congressional power, and concludes:
the crisis with respect to the situation in Kosovo and
with respect to Slobodan Milosevic, his close associates
and supporters and persons under open indictment for war
crimes by ICTY has not been resolved, and because the
status of all previously blocked property has yet to be
resolved, this situation continues to pose an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security and
foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons,
I have determined that the emergency declared with respect
to Kosovo, and the measures adopted pursuant thereto,
must continue beyond June 9, 2001."
plain English: Yugoslavia is our official enemy, on the
same level as Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and other "rogue"
states. Forget the effusive statements of support for
President Vojislav Kostunica and the US government's hailing
of Yugoslavia's revolution that overthrew Milosevic's
neo-Communist regime. It was all public relations, of
no more consequence than Team Bush's pre-election signals
that they would get us out of Kosovo (and Bosnia) entirely.
With the signing of this executive order, it can no longer
be said that this is a policy President Bush inherited.
Now he has affixed his signature to a document officially
continuing and, in my view, escalating the continuing
war on the people of Yugoslavia. The Clinton policy is
his now and it may turn out that his is far
as Bush puts it, is "an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States." But how, exactly, does that work? After all,
according to the US, former dictator Slobodan Milosevic
was the cause of the region's problems, an evil influence
who had to be expunged and whose overthrow we not only
loudly called for but openly subsidized. "Milosevic must
go," declared then-secretary of state Madeleine Albright:
this was the precondition for the "normalization" of US-Yugoslav
relations. So now that old Slobo is gone
rightly locked up in a Serbian jail on charges of embezzlement,
vote fraud, murder of his political opponents, and other
crimes what's Washington's beef?
State Department soon dreamed up yet more preconditions
for normalizing relations with the new, democratic Yugoslavia.
Chief among them being the new government's acknowledgment
of the International Criminal Tribunal's authority. From
"Milosevic must go," the demand was revised to read: "Milosevic
must go to the Hague." Albright and Clinton, who
tried to submit the US to the dictates of the UN's International
Criminal Court, backed down in the end, but wanted to
set a precedent with Yugoslavia so as not to rule
out the future imposition of this budding globalist judiciary
on American citizens and soldiers.
a subset of the International Criminal Court, the International
Criminal Tribunal for War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia
(ICTFY) would be empowered to decide the fate of any Serbian
citizen based on anonymous witnesses and evidence collected
by a "court" that has never indicted a single Muslim "war
criminal" although there is no dearth of these.
President Kostunica has denounced this globalist monstrosity
as "unabashedly biased" and surely that is an understatement:
Carla Del Ponte, the Grand Inquisitor of this kangaroo
court, has never made a public statement about Albanian
post-war crimes against Serbs and others in Kosovo,
although these are well-documented. She has, in the past,
refused to accept testimony and evidence from Yugoslavia,
on the grounds that Milosevic himself was a war criminal,
although what her excuse is these days is hard to fathom.
has so far resisted the demand to hand Milosevic over,
but the US has him over a barrel. When US bombs dropped
on some of the oldest cities in Europe, the economic toll
was less immediately obvious and dramatic than the 5,000-plus
casualties, but now the pain is getting rather intense.
Yugoslavia is broke, and in ruins, not only on account
of American barbarity, but also due to the socialist barbarism
of Milosevic and his gangsterish regime.
and his cronies systematically looted the country, and
ran into the ground what they couldn't cart away. Indeed,
one of the charges against Milosevic is that he pursued
an inflationary policy that destroyed the buying power
of the people while enriching Milosevic and his cronies
who, in a classic case of grand theft on a grand
scale, were the first to receive the freshly-printed bills,
before the inevitable devaluation. Not everyone
suffers from the consequences of inflation, and the Yugoslavs'
understanding of this simple principle, which has so far
eluded the American public, is one of the charming things
about their revolution.
any case, the bombing of civilian targets by the US, such
as the country's electrical grid, and factories that produce
consumer goods, was the final straw that broke the back
of the Yugoslav economy. Without US aid, Kostunica is
facing the immediate prospect of bankruptcy. The effect
of Bush's signature at the bottom of this re-declaration
of war is that a message is being sent to Kostunica: either
bend or you'll be broken.
SOCIALISM AND HEGEMONISM
is no weak reed, in spite of attempts by his leftist critics
to portray him as Yugoslavia's absent-minded professor,
a mere figurehead without real power, the President of
a make-believe country that has practically ceased to
exist. If Montenegrin separatists have their way, they
say, he'll be the President of nothing. This conveniently
overlooks Kostunica's power as a national figure whose
power transcends his office. As
I wrote in a previous column, the popular upsurge
that brought Kostunica to power was a revolution against
socialism and for a new nationalism. Kostunica's program
represented the marriage of market liberalism with a nationalist
opposition to US hegemony in the region and a refusal
to surrender his nation's sovereignty to some supra-national
institution such as the ICTFY. In short, Kostunica represents
market nationalism, a trend that shows signs of
taking root in Japan, Italy, and, I would now argue, in
the United Kingdom. It is the natural and healthy response
of advanced nations whose leaders acknowledge the triumph
of the free market over socialism in the economic realm,
and yet still insist on maintaining their political and
cultural independence from any kind of global hegemon,
whether it be the US, the EU, the UN, or some other acronym..
America were governed by those who want to return to constitutional
principles, and the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers,
the rise of market nationalism from Belgrade to Tokyo
and points in between would be seen as a good sign,
the final proof that the Founders were right in their
vision of America as the inspiration of all, and the master
of none. But we aren't being governed by Thomas Jefferson
or his latter-day equivalents, I hasten to remind you:
George W. Bush isn't even close. To the Bush administration,
Kostunica represents a "threat" but to what?
policy of the Clinton administration was that Serbian
nationalism, in any form, represented a dire threat
to the region, while the Albanian variety (far more virulent,
as it turns out) was to be praised, subsidized, and militarized.
The theoreticians of Serbian "collective guilt" over at
the New Republic even expounded the idea that there
was something inherently Serbian about "genocide"
and that the people who allowed Milosevic to remain in
office as long as they did are incorrigibly evil. This,
really, is the theory that informs the practice of the
ICTFY. In linking cooperation with Del Ponte to US aid
and the normalization process, the Bush administration
is implementing this odious Clintonian theory and
aiming a hammer blow at Kostunica, one that could shatter
of course, has been the objective of US policy all along,
albeit not one openly expressed. While Madeleine Albright
used to demand "Milosevic must go!" at the top of her
lungs, the Bushies are a bit more discreet, whispering
"Kostunica must go" underneath their collective breath,
and only when they're sure practically no one is listening.
The difference, however, is merely stylistic: the radical
anti-Serb policy remains in place. As the supposedly "disbanded"
Kosovo Liberation Army rampages through Macedonia, and
beyond, can anyone doubt that their sponsors and creators,
the US and the governments of Western Europe, have more
than a little to do with it? The Kosovo war never ended:
it merely migrated to other parts of the Balkans. The
Albanian siege of Macedonia is just the beginning. The
Turkification of the Balkans continues on schedule: this
is the solder that will bind Turkey, a NATO member and
vital Western ally, to a united Europe: that, and the
prospect of a Trans-Balkan oil pipeline, requires the
extermination of Serbian nationalism, whether it be socialist,
market liberal, or vegetarian.
SOVIET UNION OF THE WEST
does any of this serve US national interests? Why is the
integration of Turkey into a European socialist super-state
viewed as a benefit by US policymakers? As Brussels claims
the status of a superpower, a rising rival to the US for
the role of global hegemon, why are we helping to enlarge
and embolden the Euro-monster? Umberto Bossi, the leader
of Italy's libertarian-regionalist Northern League, quipped
that the EU is "the Soviet Union of the West," a remark
that just about sums up the political vision (and pedigree)
of the Euro-crats. Why oh why are we in the business
of creating our own enemies?
a critic of nations "that too easily give up their sovereignty
to supranational organizations" as he once put
it to the European leaders gathered in solemn conclave
Kostunica is precisely the kind of leader that
an America First foreign policy would promote and support.
As a pole of opposition to the extension of EU power into
Eastern Europe, Kostunica could be and should be a valuable
ally. But our globalist foreign policy does not
put America first, and never has: that won't change with
the ascension of George W. Bush to the imperial throne.
It will take massive popular outrage at this shameful
treatment of a man who is a friend of American ideals
free markets and national independence to
reverse the effects of our disastrous Balkan policy. Above
all, it means we have to have determined pressure from
those Republican lawmakers who overwhelmingly opposed
Clinton's dirty little war.
nationalism as an international phenomenon is rising up
through the cracks of global fault-lines like a volcanic
vapor. Eruptions, as I have mentioned, have occurred not
only in Yugoslavia, but in other regions where radical
political change and conflict is in motion: in Italy and
Japan. While the market part of the equation is conducive
to makers of US policy, the nationalist aspect is bound
to cause conflict, as long as the US is committed to a
policy of global intervention. In Yugoslavia, the conflict
with the US is pronounced and now largely out in the open:
after all, the US has just proclaimed Kostunica's government
such a "threat" to the US that it requires nothing less
than a declaration of "national emergency."
CASE OF JAPAN
other instances, the conflict will be less open, at first,
yet the undercurrent of tension will cause more than a
few ripples on an otherwise smooth surface. This is especially
true in the case of Japan, where the supreme rule of form
is designed to mask such undercurrents, while subtly underscoring
Szamuely, writing in the New York Press, ruins
a really excellent column on the vicitmization
of Japan during World War II by concluding:
is little prospect of Japan's subordination coming to
an end any time soon. Today, the new Japanese prime minister,
Junichiro Koizumi widely hailed as a Japanese 'nationalist'
is talking of modifying the U.S.-imposed post-1945
constitution. Japan, it seems, is soon to possess armed
forces beyond what is necessary for self-defense, and
there is nothing whatsoever 'nationalist' about this proposal.
It is just the latest policy being foisted on Japan by
the United States. It is not hard to figure out why: Japan
is to be our junior partner in the coming conflict with
that's funny, but every Japanese nationalist of any significance
supported Koizumi and the governing coalition parties.
But, then again, we should hardly be surprised that Western
have arrogated to themselves the privilege of deciding
who is and is not a true Japanese nationalist. If an aide
to General MacArthur wrote the rough draft of the Japanese
'Peace Constitution' on the back of an envelope; then
why shouldn't George Szamuely appoint himself the
final arbiter of Japanese politics?
STATE, AND ARMY
it seems to me that there is something inherently and
essentially nationalist about insisting on the
right to defend the territory and interests of the country
by engaging in war. After all, what is nationalism without
a nation and what is a nation without an army?
This is not something that is "foisted" on a nation, but
a core necessity. Japan is now defenseless against the
possibility of attack. Don't they have the right to defend
themselves, independently of what the US might wish? And,
in wishing for it, US policymakers will not necessarily
be all that pleased with the results. The strong pro-China
lobby in the US and I include both factions, the
mainlanders and the Taiwanese is not likely to
be all that receptive to a resurgent Japan. Powerful pro-China
interests, influential in the Bush administration, will
likely be aroused to opposition. Best of all, Japanese
rearmament, and the cultural-political shift this implies,
will eventually lead to the demand for an end to the US
occupation, a demand that has been getting louder and
more insistent lately. Surely the noninterventionist Szamuely
thinks this would be a good thing.
US SOCK PUPPET?
to the charge that Koizumi is a US sock-puppet, the "junior
partner" of US imperialism in the region and that
Japan is somehow fated to endure "subordination" in perpetuity
one can only wonder if, as far as Szamuely is concerned,
the only legitimate form of Japanese resistance to American
domination is voluntary absorption by China. The rise
of China as a regional hegemon would never have been possible
without the American conquest and subordination of Japan.
Reduced to the status of a protectorate, forced to "host"
an army of occupation, Japan's natural role as the counterweight
to China was sabotaged by the US. By distorting the natural
balance of power in Eastasia and tilting it toward China
aside from having a hand in ensconcing Mao's gang
in power US policymakers created their own enemies,
who simply moved into a power vacuum.
MEANING OF KOIZUMI
election victory of Koizumi, whose brand of market nationalism
involves freeing up the Japanese economy as well as reasserting
Japanese sovereignty, is clearly in America's legitimate
national interest and also in the interests of
peace. For the Japanese would hardly be served by the
escalation of tensions, or even a war with China: after
all, they would be caught in the crossfire. The economic
liberal aspect of Koizumi's market nationalism means trade,
not war, with Beijing. Japan's semi-socialist export-driven
economy, totally geared toward US markets and woven
into the fabric of America's overseas empire so
clearly described by Szamuely in his piece, is coming
to an end, along with the complete military dependence
on the US. This is what Koizumi's reforms will accomplish:
if they succeed, then the US and Japan will ultimately
switch roles in Eastasia, with the US relegated to "junior
partner" in the relationship. Which is as it should be:
after all, America, for all the pretensions of its globalist
leaders, cannot and should not try to be an "Asian power."
rise of market nationalism of real leaders, serious
and principled men like Kostunica and Koizumi is
proof that nationalism abroad can be something other than
crude anti-Americanism, something less tiresome than a
hatred of McDonald's or a reflexive Third Worldism. It
is proof that the spread of liberty worldwide is not dependent
on the actions of the US government overseas, and that
our self-appointed role as the global guardian of "democracy"
is unnecessary and counterproductive. Finally, it is a
retort to some who claim that anti-interventionism must
mean support for "anti-American" dictators whether
they be interventionists, who claim that all opposition
to their war plans is by its nature "anti-American," or
those on the far Left who do support foreign dictators,
just as long as they are anti-American.