Archive : ISG Pamphlets : War in the Balkans

The Murder of Bosnia - Part Five

Geoff Ryan

Milosevic Is Responsible For The Wars And Atrocities

This is not, of course, to deny the reactionary nature of the Tudjman regime or to imply support for its policies. Tudjman has frequently played into the hands of the Greater Serbia chauvinists. For example, the decision of the Croatian government to change its law on citizenship — de facto denying equality to Serbs — strengthened Milosevic’s appeals to Serbian chauvinism and his preparations for war. His use of the sahovnica, the red and white chequered shield, as the main emblem of Croatia intensified Serb fears. [2] The abolition of the use of the Cyrillic script in favour of the sole use of the Latin script further antagonised Croatian Serbs. [3]

Tudjman’s measures have to be seen in the light of the undoubted over-representation of Serbs in Croatian institutions. Serbs accounted for 40% of members of the League of Communists in Croatia, eight out of twelve editors at Radio Zagreb and more than 60% of Police. [4] Tudjman’s attempts to replace Serbs with Croats facilitated Milosevic in his attempt to whip up nationalist hysteria allowing him to intervene militarily in Croatia. Moreover, it is obvious that Milosevic and Tudjman agreed on the carve-up of Bosnia-Hercegovina some time ago. [5]

However, despite the crimes of Tudjman it is completely false to claim that he is equally responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia or, even worse, primarily responsible (as does Socialist Worker).

It has been the Serbian army and Seselj’s Cetniks that have carried out systematic murder of people because of their ethnic origins. It has been the Serbian army and Cetniks that have driven people out of their towns and villages, the so-called policy of ’ethnic cleansing`. It has been the Serbian army and the Cetniks that have set up concentration camps. It has been the Serbian army and the Cetniks that have used mass rape as a weapon of war. The rape of Bosnian women has been a systematic policy decided on by the Serbian military and political hierarchy. The victims (and the rapists) have not been chosen at random. Women (and often children) have been raped by men known to them. Serb soldiers have been forced – at gun-point – to rape their neighbours, friends, relatives etc. Those who have refused have been executed. The aim has not simply been to degrade and humiliate women – particularly Muslim women – but to make it impossible for there to be any reconciliation between the different communities. [6]

Whilst it is almost certainly true that murders, expulsions and rapes have been carried out by soldiers and militias of all sides these have, until recently, primarily been carried out by individuals or small groups. However reprehensible these acts may be they do not compare to the deliberate policy of murder, rape and torture embarked upon by Milosevic, Seselj and Karadzic in order to carry out the ’ethnic cleansing’ which is necessary to implement their policy of uniting all the Serbs in a single state. Their main targets have overwhelmingly been the non-Serb civilian populations and all cultural manifestations of their existence.

The Croat HVO is now carrying out similar acts in northern Bosnia and evidence is emerging of collusion between Serb and Croat forces to facilitate attacks upon Muslims and others opposed to the carve-up of Bosnia. The ability of the HVO to attempt to emulate Karadzic is, however, a direct consequence of the totally cynical policies pursued by the imperialist powers.

War in Croatia

Some historical background on the Krajina

In the 17th century, after a defeated attack by the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg empire on the Ottoman army, tens of thousands of Serbs fled from the spiritual home of the Serbian Orthodox church in Pec, Kosova. They re-established the Orthodox Patriarchy at Sremski Karlovci in Vojvodina where they were granted religious freedom and limited self-government by the Austro-Hungarian empire. In return the Serbs agreed to defend the Habsburg Military Frontier (Vojna Krajina) which stretched from the Dalmatian coast of modern day Croatia to the western edge of Romania.

Whatever Croatian nationalists may claim there were already Serbs living in these Krajina regions. Most had simply migrated there. Some had even been settled by the Ottoman empire. However, the Serbs who came as soldiers to defend the Vojna Krajina had a very different relationship to the Habsburg empire than the rest of the population of Croatia. The Vojna Krajina Serbs were always under the direct control of the dominant partner in the Habsburg empire, Austria. Croatia (or at least those parts under Habsburg domination) was nominally under Hungarian rule, though with a certain degree of independence.

During the reign of Maria-Theresa in the 18th century the Krajina Serbs lost much of their powers of self-rule. The Vojna Krajina was organised into military districts. The Serbs were organised into regiments under Austrian control, based on the city of Karlovac which was constructed solely for military purposes. Thus large parts of Croatia were administered from Vienna, frequently against the wishes of the Croatian and Hungarian nobility — to say nothing of the wishes of the people of Croatia — via Serb settlers based in small garrison towns and the surrounding countryside. Approximately 26 per cent of the Serbs of Croatia live along the former Vojna Krajina. Although they form a majority in most of these regions there is a sizeable Croat population.

One of those towns on the Vojna Krajina is Knin, formerly the place of enthronement of medieval Croat kings. Today it is the capital of the ’Autonomous Republic of Krajina’ (ARK), the home of the most hard-line Serb nationalists in Croatia. It is also the main centre of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS). Interestingly, during the 2nd World War the Knin region was virtually the only Serb area of Croatia in which the Serbian nationalist Cetniks were the dominant current. In virtually every other area the Serbs of Croatia supported Tito’s Partisans. In July 1989 the Serbs of Knin organised demonstrations in support of Milosevic’s repression of the Albanian majority population of Kosova. These demonstrations of open Greater Serbian nationalism brought the Serbs of Knin into conflict with the then Communist government in Croatia (in which, as we have noted above, there was a disproportionately large number of Serbs).

Knin is a small town of about ten thousand inhabitants. The Knin region (Kninska Krajina) is primarily rural. Its previous military role is continued in the extraordinary affinity of the Krajina Serbs with weapons. [7] However, Knin also has an important role in the economy of Croatia. It is the central communications point between Zagreb and the tourist resorts of Dalmatia. The loss of Knin would be, therefore, a serious blow to the Croatian economy.

Despite all Milosevic’s attempts to portray the war in Croatia as one of defence by a Serb population threatened with annihilation there is no truth whatsoever in his allegations. Indeed, as noted, the Serbs of the Krajina first came into conflict with the Serb dominated Communist party. Milan Babic and other leaders of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) whipped up hysteria against the supposedly Ustase regime of Franjo Tudjman. [8] Their allegations were faithfully repeated by the Belgrade press. They were not only already well-armed but received further weapons directly from the JNA. The terms of the referendum which the SDS organised to support its secession from Croatia were left vague. Voters were only asked whether they supported autonomy for the Serbs, which does not necessarily imply secession. Croats living in the Krajina were not, of course, allowed to vote whilst Serbs living outside Croatia were able to do so. The war in Croatia had nothing to do with defending the rights of the Serb population but was aimed at preventing the Croatian people from exercising their right to self-determination. [9]

War of the Countryside Against the Cities

In fact the vast majority of Croatia’s Serbs do not even live in the Krajina. Yet Milosevic and Babic continued to claim that they spoke in the name of all Serbs. The wishes of the 200,000 Serbs living in Zagreb were ignored. It was the rural Serbs who dominated. Thus the war in Croatia not only became a war of Croats against the Serbs of the Krajina, backed by Serbia and the JNA. It also became a war of the countryside against the cities. It is the backward, reactionary nature of the rural populations that explains why war in both Croatia and Bosnia has been so savage and why there has been destruction of cultural and historical symbols on a scale far surpassing that of the Nazi occupation. [10] The rural populations tended to be less ethnically mixed than the cities. Hence the driving out of whole populations from villages. Thus war was not only waged by the JNA against Croats. Hungarians and Czechs were also forced to flee their villages. By contrast, in the cities many Serbs in Croatia fought against the JNA. In Dubrovnik the whole of the Serb community remained to defend their city. In Vukovar a third of the defenders were Serbs, Hungarians or Ruthenes. Similarly in Bosnia ’ethnic cleansing’ has been at its worst in the countryside. In the cities the mixed populations continue to fight alongside one another. It is simplistic, therefore, to see the wars in Croatia and Bosnia as purely nationalist in character.

Why Bosnia Is of Crucial Importance

Bosnia-Hercegovina has been, throughout history, and in all its different forms, a multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-religious entity. In some ways it is a microcosm of Yugoslavia. The attachment to Yugoslavia was probably stronger in Bosnia-Hercegovina than in any of the other Republics — not least since the proclamation of the second Yugoslavia was made at a meeting of the AVNOJ on 29th-30th November 1943 in the town of Jacje, (recently destroyed by Serb Cetniks) near Sarajevo. [11] It was in Sarajevo in 1992 that the biggest demonstration against the war in Croatia took place uniting Bosnians of all national and ethnic groups. This demonstration was fired on by Serb nationalist forces.

Bosnia-Hercegovina has 3 main national/ethnic groups: Croats (17.3%); Serbs (31.3%) and Muslims (43.7%) [figures from 1991 census]. In addition 5.5% of the population defined themselves as ’Yugoslavs’ (Montenegrins, Jews and other nationalities present in very small numbers are 2.1%). The numbers defining themselves as Yugoslav are higher than for the former Yugoslav Federation as a whole (2.9%) or any of the other Republics. Only in the formerly autonomous, and even more ethnically heterogeneous, province of Vojvodina did a greater number of people see themselves as Yugoslavs (8.4%).

However the numbers of Bosnians defining themselves as Yugoslav had declined in comparison with the 1981 census (10.1%) , an indication of the growing threat of war. In particular there was an increase in the numbers of those defining themselves as Muslims — people who had previously defined themselves as Yugoslavs.

The Role of Imperialism

The break-up of Yugoslavia has presented the various imperialist powers with enormous difficulties. There have been, and continue to be, important differences between the various states — particularly between the EC and the US — but also divisions within states (e.g. Thatcher’s opposition to Major’s policies). Moreover, whilst there is certainly nothing approaching an organised movement around the war in Bosnia there is clearly large-scale public concern about the atrocities witnessed every night on the television and a feeling that something should be done about it. Whilst this sentiment often has a very reactionary dynamic — particularly in favour of armed intervention — it nevertheless has had some effect on pushing governments into appearing to be doing something. The different responses of the EC and the US/Thatcher are based partly upon the different audiences they are appealing to and partly on the different conceptions of what is most in the interests of imperialism.

However, in the final analysis there are no real differences between the EC and US governments. (Thatcher is a slightly different case — not least because she doesn’t have to take any responsibility for actually doing anything. Her rhetoric would probably be rather different if she were still in office). There are obviously massive risks in military intervention. This would be no quick victory like the Gulf war. There would be a real possibility of large numbers of US or European soldiers being killed. In the US the "Vietnam Syndrome" still exerts considerable influence and reduces the tactical options for Clinton. That is probably why Clinton — apart from Thatcher — has been most vocal in supporting an end to the arms embargo. The European powers are more concerned about the potential spreading of conflicts throughout the Balkans and, therefore, prefer direct military intervention that they can control to the risks inherent in allowing oppressed people to defend themselves.

Thus, despite the differences all the imperialist powers have no real intentions of doing anything to end Serbian (and Croat) aggression in Bosnia. They have made no attempt to enforce the limited measures such as the no-fly zones, they have been forced to announce to assuage public opinion. The Vance-Owen plan was abandoned virtually overnight in favour of "safe havens" — making even greater concessions to Karadzic and Boban. Now the imperialists have resigned themselves to the division of Bosnia into three `ethnic states’ in which the 45% Muslim population would have only 20% of the territory and leaving the door open to the fusion of the Serb and Croat `states’ into Serbia and Croatia. Everything the imperialists have done has been totally cynical.

Imperialist policy amounts to attempting to silence public concern whilst creating the most stable conditions in the region for future imperialist profits. Above all that requires a strong Serbia. Despite all the anti-Milosevic rhetoric the various imperialists have all helped maintain Milosevic in power.

Imperialism as a whole initially wanted to maintain a unified Yugoslav state. It opposed any moves that threatened to lead to the break-up of Yugoslavia — not least because the opposition movements in Croatia and, above all Slovenia, had a genuine popular character. [12] Thus imperialism refused to recognise the declarations of independence of the various Republics. It was only after the Slovene Territorial Defence forces had defeated the Federal army and whilst Serbian forces were waging war in Croatia that the EC finally agreed to recognise Slovene and Croat independence. It was only after the war had begun in Bosnia that imperialism recognised Bosnian independence. Macedonia has only just received recognition whilst Kosova remains unrecognised as an independent state.

Contrary to what some (notably Keith Veness in Labour Briefing) have argued, it was not imperialist intervention in Yugoslavia that led to its break-up. On the contrary, it was the popular movements, faced with the complete intransigence of the Serbian regime, that were pushed on the road to independence against the wishes of imperialism — including, at the time, German imperialism. [13] Recognition of (some of) the independent states was a belated realisation that the only way imperialism could hope to gain anything from the break-up of Yugoslavia was to accept reality. German imperialism was the most far-sighted in this regard and was prepared to unilaterally recognise Slovenia and Croatia. The rest of the EC was forced to follow suit in order to avoid losing out on potential markets.

Of course the imperialists are now trying to gain support in Slovenia and, most notably, Croatia. German imperialism is hoping to become the dominant power. However, whilst it is true that they have provided large amounts of arms to Croatia since independence they did not do so whilst war was still raging. The arms Tudjman has received have been primarily for use in Bosnia.

The sanctions against the Serbian (and Montenegrin) regimes have had little effect on reducing the ability of Milosevic to wage war. [14] It has been the working class that has had to pay the price, in terms of massive unemployment and rocketing inflation. Serbia was able to seize control of all the weapons of the former Federal army and has a well developed arms industry which is capable of continuing to produce military hardware. On the contrary, the arms embargo has overwhelmingly affected the ability of the Bosnian resistance to defend itself. Whilst, in theory, imperialism could end the embargo — and help make profits for the arms manufacturers — this would potentially alienate the Serbian regime and would probably pose the threat of breaking up the current alliance with Yeltsin.

Despite the rhetoric about war crimes and Serbian aggression imperialism has been clearly willing to come to an accommodation with Milosevic. The Vance-Owen plan and its "safe havens" successor fundamentally conceded the notion of ethnically pure states and handed over large areas of Bosnia to Serb and Croatian control. Moreover, these plans, in conjunction with the arms embargo, encouraged the most right-wing Croat forces to emulate the Serb militias. German weapons have proved useful for driving out unarmed, or poorly armed, Muslims from areas awarded to Croatia or for expanding potential Croat held territory. Whilst, as mentioned above, there is no doubt that Milosevic and Tudjman (and their local henchmen Karadzic and Boban) had come to some agreement on the division of Bosnia-Hercegovina this would have been much more difficult to implement if the Bosnian resistance had been armed and if imperialism had not been willing to accept the dismemberment of Bosnia.

The cynical complicity in the carve-up of Bosnia will, no doubt, have future repercussions. The only question is whether further wars will break out first in Macedonia or Kosova.

Geoff Ryan

NOTES

[1] This only refers to the question of Serbian aggression against the right of Croatia to secede. In Bosnia-Hercegovina Croatian nationalism has an absolutely reactionary role. It is interesting that most of the left has little problem with Slovene nationalism or Slovene secession whilst Croat nationalism is seen as indefensible in any circumstances.

[2] The use of the sahovnica is frequently cited as an example of how Tudjman is attempting to rebuild the NDH. Whilst the shield was used by the Ustase it’s appearance as a symbol within Croatian heraldry predates the Ustase by several centuries.

[3] This was a particularly stupid move, even for Tudjman, since many Serbs in Croatia could hardly read Cyrillic script. Even in Knin 95 percent of Serbs used the Latin script.

[4] Compared to 12% of the population.

[5] It is likely that Tudjman in fact was the initiator of this proposal. He believed that if agreement on carving up Bosnia could be reached then this would save Croatia from war. As usual he blundered fatally.

[6] Women who have become pregnant as a result of being raped have been advised by the Pope not to even contemplate an abortion. In Croatia posters proclaim ’Even a Foetus is a Little Croat`. In addition women have been virtually driven out of public life in all the former constituent parts of Yugoslavia. In every single Republic there has been a dramatic decline in the number of women MPs.

[7] See M. Glenny, The Fall of Yugoslavia, p6.

[8] It is interesting that Zagreb has the largest Jewish community in ex-Yugoslavia despite the supposed Ustase regime. The Jews of Croatia supported Croatian independence. Moreover, it is only in the last few months that this community has started to complain about the increase in Ustase symbols and influence. Whilst this is cause for concern it hardly squares with the lurid versions of Ustase atrocities peddled by Milosevic.

[9] For useful accounts of the war in Croatia see M. Glenny, op cit, and M. Thompson, A Paper House. Whilst both tend towards the view that all the nationalist leaders are equally to blame both authors give invaluable accounts of the processes taking place which resulted in war.

[10] We do not wish to imply that peasants are always inherently reactionary. The majority of the Partisan army were peasants. However they had a revolutionary leadership and therefore acted in a revolutionary way.

[11] The first meeting of AVNOJ also took place in Bosnia, in Bihac.

[12] Moreover, leading figures in the Bush administration Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft had long-standing connections with the Serbian regime. Eagleburger, who was US ambassador to Belgrade in the 1970s was a social friend of one of the heads of the Serb national Beobanka — Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger was president and Scowcroft vice-president of Henry Kissinger Associates, which had large contracts with Yugo America and other Yugoslav companies.

[13] If recognition of a state is imperialist intervention surely it follows that refusal to recognise an independent state is also imperialist intervention.

[14] Indeed, they have strengthened Milosevic’s position inside Serbia, whilst boosting more right-wing forces among Serbs outside Serbia. Thus while Milosevic won the recent Serbian elections fairly comfortably he lost the elections in the Krajina to his erstwhile ally Milan Babic.

back to top