 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 April 1999 Issue No. 426 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 April 1999 Issue No. 426
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Special Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Mediaeval animosities
By Gamil Mattar *
"The stupidest war of the century", some analysts are calling it: the most powerful nation in the world, supported by the wealthiest nations in Europe, has rallied its forces against a country with a population about the size of that of New York City.
It does seem extraordinarily stupid, if only because of the Belgrade regime's tenacity and the dogged persistence of the Serbian people. Ordinarily, tenacity and steadfastness are not thought of as national defects -- or were not, until this age of economic globalisation, the denigration of nationalist and patriotic sentiments and the imposition of partial peace packages and economic embargoes. Against this backdrop of assorted imperialist behaviour, one could very well describe steadfastness as stupid, if not crazy. But then, is it not also folly or lunacy to spend all those billions of dollars and to mobilise all those forces in an area where the GNP of a country like Albania, for example, barely exceeds $2.5 million -- approximately the price of that Phantom jet downed by Belgrade recently?
When we look at the war in the Balkans in the context of American strategy, however, we must cast about for other descriptions. "Stupid" alone no longer suits those in favour of perpetuating the NATO bombardment of everything stationary or moving on the ground. This, one is given to understand, must be done in order to punish the Yugoslavian people for supporting a despot, and perhaps a madman -- even if that means that, when the dust clears, Yugoslavia finds itself worse off than it was at the end of World War II. That war too, incidentally, was triggered by the very intractability of the Balkan peoples. Finally, what is one to make of the evacuation of a million Kosovars from their homes, when the war is presumably being waged in order to prevent the Serbs from expelling them from their homeland?
The analyses of the war focus on details -- the mistakes of pilots and perhaps the flaws in operational planning -- but they do not answer the basic question: why? Very few believe that rescuing the people of Kosovo is the only aim of this war. If indeed that was the sole aim, it would have been possible to come to their aid with a far simpler and much less costly military operation, and without all the media and political fanfare. Nor is there a single explanation for the mystery surrounding the military operation in the Balkans. As a result, conjectures abound. The most widely accepted is that proposed by American, Russian, German and some Arab commentators, and which holds that NATO's leaders, i.e. the Americans, are disturbed that NATO, which is about to celebrate its 50th anniversary, is not the coherent and powerful organisation they would like it to be. These leaders missed the opportunity presented by the civil war that led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early '90s, and have seized their chance this time around. I recall clearly that, shortly before the signing of the Dayton Accord, American and European officials predicted that Kosovo's turn would be next.
A look at the new map of Europe drives home the causes for its leaders' anxiety. Tensions in Yugoslavia, potential conflict in its immediate surroundings, notably in Hungary and Romania, and the growing likelihood of mass population transfers, even into and out of Bulgaria, are all factors that decisively deflate any sense of victory within NATO. The searing breach in the Balkans is sufficient to undermine any claims that NATO has secured control over Europe from the Atlantic to Russia's easternmost borders. In other words, the Balkans are a live volcano whose every eruption threatens the peace and stability of an entire continent.
Some European commentators give stronger emphasis to the historical dimension. They contend that the "Eastern question", which began with the collapse of the Ottoman Sultanate, has remained unresolved until the present day. Although the West wrangled over and ultimately managed to divvy up Ottoman spoils in Europe, it failed to address the problems of ethnic and religious sectarianism that frequently plagued the Sultanate at the height of its power. Thus, in Europe today, Protestants from Western and Central Europe, led by the US and supported by the Catholics, are waging a war against a stronghold of Slavic orthodoxy. This war has galvanised the otherwise weak and disparate Slavic orthodox forces, which have put aside national and ethnic differences to fight off the encroaching Protestant-led alliance. Europe today is reminiscent of the early Middle Ages, split between the western and eastern Roman empires.
South of a Europe revisited by Christian divisions, furthermore, the Islamic encroachment is taking place. The first wave of Muslim conquests dates back hundreds of years, when the Ottomans expanded into southeastern Europe, leaving behind, as they receded, large pockets of Muslim populations. This element should become increasingly influential should the Protestant-Orthodox, or West-East, clash broaden. Indeed, we already have an indication of this trend in the Greater Albania project.
The second wave of Islamic encroachment took place during the latter half of this century. This time, the advance started in North Africa and the Indian subcontinent, spreading into Western Europe, where Muslims have now become a significant minority which can be neither ignored nor made to return to the countries of their forefathers. The two overlapping maps of modern Europe, with their geographical and historical divides, irresistibly call to mind Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilisations". Put another way, the war in Yugoslavia suggests that such clashes have become an immutable principle of American foreign policy. Is not the war in the Balkans another round in the series of Western attacks on the Other?
In all events, the war against Yugoslavia has failed to achieve its objectives, unless the destruction of that nation, the annihilation of Kosovo and the evacuation of its inhabitants were the prime aims. Certainly, too, the US is looking for ways to save face. Divisions have surfaced within NATO over peace initiatives, while Russia, whose behavior has irked NATO leaders, is now being appealed to openly for help. Now, too, Kofi Annan has appeared on the scene -- late as usual, but no less welcome for all that.
*The writer is the director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
