This conference comes at a critical historical juncture, in which the rise of China opens the potential for creating a multilateral world, in which nations can more freely choose their own path of development.
It was Yugoslavia’s misfortune to be caught in a historical moment where imperialism saw itself triumphant and free to impose its will on others. In the late 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev, eager to please the United States, was dismantling socialism in the Soviet Union and abandoning allies such as Cuba and Nicaragua.
The demise of socialism in Eastern Europe was soon followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the coming to power of Boris Yeltsin, Washington’s man in Moscow. China’s economic rise was still at an early stage, and the nation was not yet in a position to offer a meaningful counterweight to Western hegemony.
The late 1980s and the 1990s were difficult for small nations that wanted to follow an independent path. Many were compelled to bend to pressure from the West. For example, Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe were forced to implement structural adjustment programs that put their economies at the service of Western investors.
Disobedience was swiftly punished, and when Zimbabwe decided to abandon that path and embark on its long-overdue land reform program, it was hit by harsh Western sanctions that brought economic devastation. Zimbabwe remains under sanctions to this day.
In such an environment, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia inevitably became a target. Thus, in one of its first actions, in 1990 the U.S. applied pressure and threatened sanctions, which induced Yugoslavia to schedule multiparty elections in each republic.
Borisav Jović, then president of Yugoslavia, was told by a reliable source that an American diplomat met with leaders of Croatian anti-communist parties in Zagreb and that the United States had chosen to destroy communism in Yugoslavia through them at the cost of shattering the country.
Nationalist-oriented parties, supported by the United States, won power in four of Yugoslavia’s republics. Croatia and Slovenia chose the path of violent secession with the aid of arms shipments from Germany and Austria.
Yugoslavia’s collective presidency, which at this point included secessionists, was unable to agree on declaring a state of emergency that would have enabled the Yugoslav People’s Army to defend the nation against the traitors who sought its destruction.
It did not escape notice that the USSR remained silent as the West was inciting violence. Borisav Jović flew to Moscow to ask Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev for help, only to be told that the West was also working to dismantle the Soviet Union, and they could not even help themselves.
The only option members of the presidency could agree on was to accept the European Community’s offer to organize a Conference on Yugoslavia to arrive at a negotiated settlement among the parties. However, it soon become apparent that the EC intended to use the conference as a battering ram to smash Yugoslavia.
The EC wasted little time in guiding events towards its desired goal. On October 17, 1991, attendees at the Conference on Yugoslavia received copies of the EC’s “Arrangements for an Overall Solution,” which called for “sovereign and independent republics with an international personality for those wishing it.” It also specified that “the republics themselves will decide on their own armed forces.” The document was the basis for talks, but what was there to negotiate when it already defined the outcome?
Serbian President Slobodan Milošević argued that the EC’s document “recognizes the right to the self-determination of Yugoslavians unequally because that right is recognized only for those who want to create new states by leaving Yugoslavia and not for those who want to continue living in the Yugoslav state.”
Of the six republic presidents, only Slobodan Milošević refused to sign the EC’s document, describing it quite correctly as “an illegitimate attempt at annulling Yugoslavia.”
Yugoslav federal officials were first blocked from speaking at the conference and then excluded altogether. This resulted in the extraordinary situation whereby decisions were made by Western powers and mostly secessionists, while Yugoslavia itself had no say in its fate.
The EC’s sidelining of Yugoslav federal officials left Serbian President Slobodan Milošević as the strongest and most consistent voice at the conference opposing Western diktat. He would not surrender to threats and pressure.
At the end of October, the EC warned that so-called “uncooperative republics” would face economic sanctions. It delivered an ultimatum to the Republic of Serbia that it would be sanctioned if it failed to accede to the EC’s “basic principles” by November 5.
Milošević and Montenegrin President Momir Bulatović submitted a proposal to add an option to the EC’s discussion document for a joint state of equal republics and peoples for those wanting to remain in Yugoslavia. They argued that a just and lasting solution to the crisis is possible only if that option is given equal treatment with other options at the conference. The EC, not surprisingly, rejected the proposal.
On the day of the EC’s deadline, Milošević rejected the ultimatum, describing it as “an act of pressure and violence,” which was “grossly violating the equality of the sides participating in the conference.” Furthermore, Milošević rebuked the EC for basing the conference on the fictional premise that Yugoslavia no longer existed. Milošević said: “I want to say that we have never and also cannot now agree to Yugoslavia being written off with the stroke of a pen.”
Retribution was swift in coming. On November 8, the European Community announced a package of sanctions on Yugoslavia, including termination of its trade and cooperation agreement and a reduction in exports of textile products. Four days later, Stipe Mesić, the Croatian secessionist that the West had forced Yugoslavia to name as its president, sent a letter to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City. He demanded that it “refuse to comply with and reject any attempt by the Yugoslav National Bank to withdraw funds.” Not long after, the EC voted to exempt the four secession-minded republics from sanctions, targeting only Serbia and Montenegro.
It came as no surprise when the EC announced on December 16 that it would recognize the independence of those Yugoslav republics that “wish to be recognized as independent states.” Soon thereafter, the EC officially recognized the independence of Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia, and some time later, Bosnia.
That would leave only Serbia and Montenegro wishing to remain in a common state, now reconstituted as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Deemed by the EC as “uncooperative” for opposing Western demands, the nation was subjected to a series of crippling economic sanctions in the months and years ahead.
NATO, whose ostensible purpose was to defend Western Europe against the imaginary “threat” of invasion by the Soviet Union, no longer had a pretext for its continued existence after the disappearance of the USSR. Thus, a new role had to be adopted, and in the interests of militarism, the best option was seen as out-of-area operations in support of U.S. war-making. Ideally, the first such operation should be in Europe so as not to overstretch the organization’s purported mission.
NATO’s first military operations were conducted in Bosnia, and then in 1999 came the full-scale attack on Yugoslavia. The fiction of “defense” was dropped in this open war of aggression. It was still a time when Yugoslavia knew it could not count on support that would deter attack, yet Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević stood firm in defense of the nation. Few leaders at that time would have been as strong in standing up to the world’s mightiest military force.
The bombing of Yugoslavia firmly established NATO’s new role in supporting U.S. wars of aggression. In the following years, NATO bombed Libya and participated in the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Further expansion is envisioned, and NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has said that NATO is facing more global challenges; therefore, it needs a global outlook and approach. He has also stated that it is important for NATO to address the rise of China.
We are now in a different historical moment, though. Russia has started to recover from the prolonged slump that followed the dissolution of the USSR. More importantly, China’s economic rise in the past two decades has been spectacular. Fairly soon, China will overtake the United States as the world’s leading economy. Having learned the lesson from Libya, Russia and China have vetoed several U.S. draft Security Council resolutions on Syria. The United States was able to gain China’s vote in favor of devastating economic sanctions on North Korea only by threatening to impose sanctions on Chinese banks.
The United States is expending enormous efforts to disrupt and block China’s economic relations with other nations but with limited success. China remains fully engaged in a wide variety of projects throughout Africa, to the mutual benefit of China and African countries. The United States was unable even to compel Germany to halt progress on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
In the Balkans, Serbia is building factories to manufacture Russian and Chinese covid-19 vaccines. With China’s help, Serbia has launched several infrastructure projects. In Montenegro, the United States failed to stop the construction of the Bar-Boljare Highway, which promises economic benefits for the entire Balkans.
Imperialism can no longer impose its will wherever it wants in the same way it has in recent decades. While it still wields much power and counts some successes, with increasing frequency small nations are partnering with China to organize their economies for the benefit of their people rather than that of Western capital. Slobodan Milošević fought against enormous odds on behalf of his people. He set an example of resistance. With China’s help, more nations are following that path in today’s world, with increasing success.
Gregory Elich
(Contribution to the International Conference MILOŠEVIĆ – AGAINST NATO CRIMES, FOR A NEW WORLD)