27th July 1997

The UN in the age of identity

Bosnia claimed many headlines last week. But not many Sri Lankans talk of Yugoslavia these days, though in Tito's time Yugoslavia, widely regarded as one of Sri Lanka's staunchest friends, was rated a country of some consequence in European affairs and at the United Nations. Non-alignment and N.A.M. a rapidly expanding movement, partly explained Yugoslavia's rating.

The first summit was held in Belgrade, a shrewd move by Jawaharlal Nehru, the authentic architect of N.A.M. He appreciated both the ideological and the locational factors. Tito was a communist, the ruling party, the League of Communists, Marxist-Leninist but no Soviet satrap. Yugoslavia was on the frontline, the line separating the pro-U.S., capitalist-democratic states of Western Europe and the pro-Soviet communist countries of Eastern Europe, now qualified, at least some of them, for NATO membership. It is an issue that has strained Moscow-Washington relations and tempted poor President Boris Yeltsin to seek comfort in China and other Asian neighbours.

Yes, Tito's party was communist, the League of Communists, but "Third World" (NAM) journalists who spent a few hours in the office of BORBA, the party paper, would be lectured on 'the basic differences' between the Yugoslav party and the communist parties of eastern Europe. The message was clear - the vital importance of national independence. This was yet another reason why the Asian-African-Latin American states in the period of de-colonisation could respond instinctively to Nehru's insistence on an independent foreign policy. He allowed Tito to take the initiative since the Yugoslav leadership did stand up bravely to Stalin. Eastern Europe was already taking "the line" from Moscow.

Nonalignment made sense in a bipolar world . It offered the ex-colonial countries a new collective identity, the spokesman of the colonised and the plundered, and the trade union of the economically exploited even after independence. Yes, Tito was a Marxist-Leninist. How could he lead the newly freed countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America? Why was he treated so well by the United States and its allies, including Europe's leading imperialists. "After his break with Stalin the western perception of Tito changed.

His concern to preserve his regime was seen - in no small part thanks to his own skill - as an abjuration of the values that had helped to establish it. All but forgotten was the fact that Tito had broken with Stalin over the issue of national autonomy, not over the validity of Communist theory. Through all vicissitudes Tito remained a member of the Leninist faith.....", observes Henry Kissinger, (WHITE HOUSE YEARS p. 928)

New conflict

Yes, national independence, the badge of group identity. But we are now in a new phase of history where the "nation" remains the central issue but is re-defined in terms of Serbs, or Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, Croats, a Muslim-Croat federation - a terminology that offers a fleeting glimpse of the multiple conflicts which threaten to tear apart Bosnia.

And so to "conflict resolution"....and "peace-keeping", after of course an "accord". Yes, we do have the Dayton Peace Accord. And implemented? Well, here's some evidence. A fortnight ago, a U.N. War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, sentenced Dusan Tadic to 20 years for crimes against Moslems. He was involved in beatings and torture of Muslims and at least two deaths during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia. "The sentence reflected the international community's new get-tough policy towards wanted war criminals as a means of shoring up the fragile Dayton Peace Accord before NATO's scheduled withdrawal from Bosnia next June."

As interesting as the verdict was this remark from the presiding judge, Mrs. Gabrielle Kirk McDonald of the United States: "You embraced the extreme principles of Serb nationalism. Those who sought territorial and political gains initiated a campaign to realise these goals by force of arms with limitless cruelty and viciousness. You responded to this campaign.... and you must bear the responsibility for your criminal conduct."

Of course the Serbs, the largest community, are not the only guilty. An ethnic Croat who took part in the Bosnian Serb army's execution of Moslems in 1995 was given a 10 year sentence, wrote Guy Dinmore, a Belgrade-based reporter.

The criminals

Are these the only "Yugoslavs" guilty of war crimes? Not at all. At its detention centre in the Hague, the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal has 10 indicted suspects. What's more the Hague has announced that it holds warrants against 67 other suspects, including the former Bosnian President, Radovan Karadzic and his top military commander, General Ratko Mladic. While all this is commendable, the Tribunal, like any Court, is helpless once the verdict is announced. Who will carry out the sentence? After years of criticism for failing to bring war criminals to justice, British forces last week moved in northwest Bosnia to "carry out" the sentences. Simo Drjlica, a former police chief was shot dead when he resisted arrest. In the same operation, a hospital director, Milan Kovacevic was arrested.

He had been indicted for crimes against Moslems in the notorious Omarska Detention Centre where Mr. Tadic has also been active. The Muslims, the most vulnerable community, have often been helpless against the neo-Nazi Serb and Croat vigilantes. But "group identity" , the main reason for exposure, can prove a source of strength too.

When Drjlica was shot dead, he was given a "hero's funeral". What's more, a bomb exploded outside the office occupied by the international monitors!

But in group identity sometimes a weakness can be a strength too. The Muslims are totally exposed in the Bosnian conflict but there are too many Muslim states, all U.N. members, for these atrocities and massacres to be kept secret. Or filed away, "No action". The Islamic identity from Indonesia to the Middle-East (keep an eye on Algeria) has become a critical factor in the troubled, violent politics of the world in the last decade of the 20th century.

Chris Bennet, spokesman for the International Crisis Group (ICG) which keeps track of the work done to make the Dayton (Bosnian) Peace Accord a reality cheered the U.S. troops that launched the successful operation against Drjlica. In the age of identity and armed conflict, the United Nations move into a new century that will produce even more complex and formidable challenges.

American primacy is not a good thing

How quickly the spotlight has turned from the expansion of NATO to the expansion of the European Union. But this is where it should have been concentrated all along. If the former Warsaw Pact eastern European members want security and economic well-being this is the place to find it, all in one. President Boris Yeltsin says he sees that too; he wants Russia to win its own place within the European Union.

The debate over NATO expansion has been a dangerous distraction from the main task. At the least a distraction, more likely something worse, a provocation, a running sore, that could in post-Yeltsin Russia lead to a new era of east-west confrontation.

Left to their own devices, the West European leaders would never have thought up the expansion of NATO. It was foisted on them by the hubris of their friend, the American superpower which, in turn, had been lobbied by the east European governments and their diaspora in the states.

Pusillanimously, the Europeans have gone along with it. But all that shows is how dependent western Europe is on the U.S.

The Europeans still find it easier to take their main political cues from Washington than cede a centralised control of foreign policy to a European directorate, an attitude that won't be changed until a solid core of the European members have established a common currency and bound themselves closer together.

The only hope for remedy in the immediate term lies with the U.S. Senate which has the power to vote down President Bill Clinton's eastward adventure. All the signs are that it is going to be America's first passionate foreign policy debate since the decision to approve doing battle with Saddam Hussein.

That passed muster with the Senate by the barest of majorities.

The fundamental question that the Senate has to decide is whether the Clinton policy of 'democratic enlargement' be allowed to develop into a Brezhnev Doctrine in reverse: states that are authoritarian may become democratic, but democracies will not be allowed to slip back.

And if this policy is now to be secured by a rigorous and expensive military commitment to all of Europe, east as well as west, is the mood of American hubris going to spill over to the rest of the world?

Is the U.S. now intent on exploiting its huge advantage as the world's sole superpower to prevent any other country becoming a new rival? Is this to be the age of American primacy?

There are at least four good reasons why it must'nt be.

There is no clear need for America to balance some countervailing power. Since the demise of the Soviet Union there is only one candidate for such a role - China. But China can never match America in the military or the economic arena in the foreseeable future.

China has no ambition to rule the world, only perhaps Taiwan, and that can be handled in a civilized manner as long as Taiwanese politicians don't provoke Beijing by pushing for "independence".

Neither does America have a need to build up its reach to deal with would-be nuclear powers. India and Pakistan have no reason to threaten America.

An Indo-Pakistan nuclear war would be a terrible thing but it makes no sense for the U.S. to get in the middle of the quarrel.

As for North Korea, Iran and Iraq and other would-be nuclear suspects, a preventive war is simply not an option, given the ability of these countries to disperse and hide away their nuclear installations. A policy of military restraint will not increase the danger of them becoming openly nuclear. Indeed, by pulling back the symbol of provocation it could well diminish it.

A third good reason is because America is not just a military behemoth, it is a cultural and economic one too. It has to decide which of these three exports is crucial to its survival and self-identity. All pose problems of resentment. All the more reason to downsize the one that is counter-productive.

So that the other two meet less militant resistance. The "Asian values" debate would probably have less steam in it if America didn't walk so tall on all of these three legs - and that in the long run would be better for the cause of enlarging democracy - the supposed essence of Clinton's foreign policy.

The fourth is the simple practical one: primacy in reality is unrealizable. Even if it continues to spend on the military at Cold War rates what can the U.S. achieve? At the height of its power it couldn't defeat North Vietnam and, as Somalia made clear the American public don't want to see body bags returning from other people's quarrels that don't directly affect America.

The intervention in ex-Yugoslavia only remains acceptable as long as the protagonists remain exhausted by war and there are no American casualties. As for Saddam Hussein, no other contemporary figure has made himself such an easy target for the kind of warfare American tanks do best, rolling across an empty desert.

America will cause an immense amount of ill will, envy and even create the very enemies it wishes to avoid if its uses its new economic strength and unchallenged military power to attempt to stride the world. The expansion of NATO is a serious enough mistake on its own but there could well be a more catastrophic one in the making.

–The writer also contributes to Los Angeles Times, Middle East Times, Arab News, New Strait Times and many other journals

Return to News/Comments Contents Page