The Chauvinists at it Again

No Latvian vodka for us please

The Western-liberals are at it again. Between the NSA surveillance scandal and the American-supported government crackdown in Egypt the hip, right-thinking crowd in the West has its panties up in a bunch over, wait for it... gay rights in the Russian Federation. You could not make this stuff up.

Obviously there can be no obligation upon anyone to care more about one event than another, and there are bound to be differences of emphasis between sincere people, but let us be serious here. When your government is drone-bombing Yemen, occupying the nation of Afghanistan, fueling the civil war in Syria and filling up its prisons with blacks, yet you spend your August crusading (posturing) against mistreatment of gays in Russia your credibility suffers. You come off as either dishonest, or too dull to be worth listening to.

What is more the letter which spearheaded all of this is a glaring piece of national chauvinism:

"He may claim that the “values” of Russia are not the “values” of the West, but this is absolutely in opposition to Peter the Great’s philosophy, and against the hopes of millions of Russians, those not in the grip of that toxic mix of shaven headed thuggery and bigoted religion, those who are agonised by the rolling back of democracy and the formation of a new autocracy in the motherland that has suffered so much (and whose music, literature and drama, incidentally I love so passionately)."

Yep, Stephen Fry, the British comedian who jump-started the Russia-frowning meme for this summer outs himself as an anti-Russian chauvinist — in the very same text he wrote to complain about the horrendous political incorrectness going on in Russia.

Fry insists the religion Russians practice is "bigoted". What is more their bigoted religion is one of the two components that creates a "toxic mix" which grips the Russians. It is incredible how unattuned the Western peddlers of synthetic moral outrage are to their own bigotry. Socialist Yugoslavia was a secular state, one which discouraged religious practice and was dedicated to promoting atheism. Yet even there proclaiming somebody practiced a bigoted religion would result in that person rightfully being seen as a mouthing-off chauvinist.

Still the Wrong Kind of Croats

Embattled Bosnian Croat enclaves in Central Bosnia during the Muslim-Croat War

I.

In December I wrote about the attitude of the ICTY toward the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I noted the court has shown itself to be negatively disposed to them and highly energized to pursue them.

I noted this differed from its demonstrated disposition toward Croatia. Indictments against soldiers and officials of the Croat Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia were issued much earlier and were more numerous (27) than those issued against the officials and soldiers of Republic of Croatia (6).

Also, the outcome of subsequent trials was far different. All procedures against officers of the Croatian military ended up in withdrawals, acquittals or transfers to Croatian courts so that in the end the ICTY did not condemn any of them to any length of imprisonment. Meanwhile the twelve Bosnian-Herzegovian Croats who found themselves condemned gathered convictions that add up to 166 years of imprisonment.

At the time, one trial against the Bosnian-Herzegovian Croats was still ongoing, the trial of six of their highest war-time political and military officials ("the Herzeg-Bosnian Six"). Last week they were proclaimed guilty and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging between 25 to 10 years, for a total of 111 years for all six. If the sentences are confirmed at the inevitable appeal, it will mean the disconnect between condemnation by the ICTY of Bosnian-Herzegovian Croats and of Croats from Croatia will amount to 277 years for the former, to zero for the latter.

Apparently encouraged by the fact that last year the sentences against two Croatian generals (Gotovina and Markač) were overturned on appeal, many media outlets in Croatia have carried opinions speculating the same could happen with regards to the "Herzeg-Bosnian Six". Especially since the verdict was a split decision — one of the three judges published a dissenting opinion in a 600 page-long dissertation.

First of all that seems at least somewhat self-serving. This is the very same media that year upon year of the trial has shown extremely little interest in publicizing the details of the proceedings and reminding the public it was happening. Instead it has been happy to see the marathon-trial pass from the mind of the public. Now that a verdict has been proclaimed and it has been forced to report on it, however, it opts to accompany the reporting with a prediction it may be realistic to expect the proclamation of guilt to yet be revoked — which just happens to lessen the impact of the news.

Slovenia: What Democracy?

A scene from anti-government protests this winter

Last week the parliament of Slovenia adjusted the Constitution in a way to curtail the citizens' right to overturn laws passed by the parliament via a referendum in a number of key areas. Most importantly the voters are from now on precluded from having a direct say in matters of finance, taxation, customs, ratification of interstate treaties and anything the parliament deems a matter of defense. In other words in exactly the areas which are the most important, and where a check of the government by the people is the most needed. They are also the areas where dissent and veto by the citizenry along the road, was the most likely.

The changes announced on May 24th will already be in effect tomorrow, eight days after the move. It was done quickly and quietly so as to attract the minimum of media attention. The media was anyway very cooperative and offered the development only scant attention, and even then only to pronounce this would actually serve to "limit abuse" of the referendum rule by political parties in motioning for referendum for "political purposes" (as opposed to for non-political purposes?).

In this way, a tiny parliament in a lightning fast move curtailed the Constitutional rights of two million citizens, who are without any legal recourse to contest the change. One can not help but note what absurdity this makes of allegedly high-minded, but actually empty and stupid notions of "democracy" and "social contract". So the Slovenians had previously 'socially contracted' they would have the right to overturn unpopular laws at direct polls, but now they have 'contracted' they would no longer have this privilege, though in fact aside from the 90 putschists in the parliament building nobody was actually doing anything last Friday? Give me a break!

Axis or Allied?

Textbook history on the Second World War is inclined to unceremoniously designate belligerent nations as either Axis or Allied. This is not necessarily invalid. However, such designation sometimes leaves out so much nuance that in the sense of actually understanding the past it may be nearly useless. This point is easy to demonstrate. Consider the participation in the Axis and Allied war effort of Denmark and of Bulgaria. The former an Allied and the latter an Axis power.

Denmark

When war broke out in Europe in 1939 Denmark attempted to remain neutral and stay out of it. But when German invasion forces poured across its borders anyway, its government capitulated on the same day. Consequentially the Germans allowed the Danish government to remain in place and to continue to administer the country albeit under certain constraints. The Danes grumbled, but ultimately went along with this. Danish politicians who left occupied Denmark for exile in Britain found themselves marginalized and without influence in the country.

Thus Denmark was — by the virtue of having been victimized by Germany which deprived it of its external independence — in the Allied imagination on their side of the World War as one of the "overrun nations" of Europe. There is justification for this view in the moral sphere, since Danes overwhelmingly resented the German occupation and sympathized with the allies.

In the material sense, however, the Danes were not doing much about it. The wartime government in Copenhagen which was cooperating with the Germans was not installed by the occupation from political forces on the margins of Danish political life. It was instead a national unity government of all the parties that could boast mainstream popularity before the occupation. Nor was there much armed resistance to the occupation, of the kind that could significantly diminish the economic benefit the Germans derived from their control of Denmark. The fact Danes rooted for the allied side in the war, nonetheless did not influence the fact their manufacturing and agriculture stood at the disposal of the Nazi Empire and the German war machine at essentially full capacity.  

Similarly, actually more Danes lost their lives fighting alongside the Germans, rather than against them. Fatalities of Danish fighters on the allied side include 850 deaths among anti-German resistance fighters (of which a minority in actual combat), the deaths of sixteen soldiers during the initial German invasion of 9th of April, 1940, as well as a further one hundred deaths of Danish soldiers in Allied service. On the other hand more than 1500 Danish volunteers fell in German service, majority of which in the Waffen-SS and on the Eastern Front.*

Danes who entered German service were far less representative of mainstream Danish aspirations than were those of their co-nationals who entered into Allied service instead. This, however, does not change some basic math. Ultimately Danish nationals were the most likely to participate in combat action in German uniform. And so in terms of blood shed, the Danes taken as a whole, through the disproportionate sacrifice of a small pro-Nazi segment of the population in the end actually shed more blood for the Germans against the Allies, than the other way around.

The Voluntaryist Reader Recommendations

Obviously enough lately I have not been able to maintain the same frequency of new posts on here as was the case in the past. This has been mostly due to real life obligations. I have been able to blog a little more over at the Voluntaryist Reader however, so you may want to check out some of my posts over there. For the readers of this blog I would especially recommend the following: Commentating on Stone’s Untold History of the States, Shock TV: Pavlik Morozov Redux, Raico on Klaus and the Czechs and Wenzel on (some other) Soviet Union.

Independence: Yours If You Want It

Brendan O'Neill has an article at Spiked where he comments on the legacy of the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. O'Neill argues the key to understanding how Chavez had been able to defy, irritate and mock the United States without apparent consequences for himself, is to understand just how much the power of the United States has declined, particularly in the moral sense. He argues ideological notions which once spurred imperial America into decisive action against its chosen opponents seem to have lost their persuasiveness and now fail to do so.

"The decisive factor in the Chavez story was not his own political vision, but the creeping incapacitation of American power and influence in global affairs, including in Latin America. Chavez and his influential cheerleaders were energised by, indeed were parasitical upon, the glaring inability of Washington to pursue or even outline its interests on the twenty-first-century world stage."

It is an assessment that is impossible to disagree with. Rather than someone who could keep Washington at bay due to his own strength and the potency of his ideas, Chavez was first and foremost a figure who merely moved to enjoy the space he had been offered by the decay of American power. It is what O'Neill styles being "parasitical" upon American impotence.

I would point out, however, the importance of understanding that Chavez nonetheless was a cut above most other state leaders. If it is the case it was the decline of American power, which had opened up room for Chavez to act in the independent manner he did, it is also the case this space had been opened up for everyone else as well. Yet very few chose to take advantage of it. This is more an indictment of Chavez's peers in charge of other states, than it is praise of the president of Venezuela, but it still leaves Chavez looking as one of the better leaders in a very sorry-looking bunch.

A pertinent comparison would be with one Milorad Dodik, the popular political leader of the Bosnian Serbs. As a politician who used to be a part of the American, and the general Western, agenda for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dodik will not be mistaken for a man with an excessive strength of convictions or for an avid believer in an energizing ideology. He is simply a US man who had observed the moral weakness of his sponsors up close and realized he could go off the reservation without consequences.

US to Bosnians: Here's What Your Constitution Should Say

Last month saw the publishing of a new proposal for the reorganization of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Muslim-Croat entity in the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina). That is not remarkable in itself. Since most everyone in the Federation, Croats and Muslims alike, agree the entity is dysfunctional and would benefit from a reorganization it is only to be expected various blueprints for reform would be brought forward. What is more newsworthy is the making of this newest draft has been financed by the US Embassy in Sarajevo.

American Paper

The reform proposal was drawn up by the "Law Institute in Bosnia and Herzegovina", an NGO that is so grassroots the address of its website appears in English (www.lawinstitute.ba). The document it has produced comes with the note it is "financially supported by the Embassy of the United States", but that "all standpoints, opinions and conclusions indicated in this document, do not necessarily reflect attitude of the U.S. Department of State".

Naturally the Americans will not tie themselves down to every detail and turn of words in the document, but it is just as obvious they would not have funded the drafting of  a proposal they disagreed with. What is more the US Ambassador in Bosnia has just recently stated constitutional reform of the Federation has the backing of the United States, and the US Embassy is the only entity mentioned as having "financially supported" the making of this draft. It is safe to conclude this is the American proposal for the reform of the Federation of BiH, which the US State Department has paid for in full.

How is This Normal?

Before moving on to the contents of the proposal, let us first take a step back and consider what should by all rights be an abnormal and outrageous state of affairs. Why should one sovereign nation even have a proposal for the reorganization of another, supposedly likewise sovereign, nation in the first place?

Nigeria does not come up with drafts for internal reform in Chile. North Korea does not spend money on drawing up plans for constitutional reform in Tanzania. Russia does not finance proposals for the internal reorganization of Belarus, or Armenia. The United States itself does not waste breath presenting plans for their internal reform to China or France, and Bosnia and Herzegovina certainly does not fund the drawing up of blueprints for the territorial reorganization of the United States of America.

Voluntaryist Reader

Just to inform anyone who follows me here, that I've also took up blogging at The Voluntaryist Reader. It is a collaborative blog recently started by over a dozen libertarian radicals with diverse interests such as politics, philosophy, economy and history. So check it out and bookmark it if sparks your interest, either the main page, or else just my archives (two posts so far).

Wrong Kind of Croat

Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, two senior officers of the Croatian army have been released by the ICTY which has reversed its decision from last year when it ruled they be imprisoned for the duration of 24 and 18 years respectively. At the time the court ignored the implication of its sentence. If the two accused were guilty of a "joint criminal enterprise" (whatever that is) for carrying out Operation Storm as the ICTY said they were, then logically so too was the Clinton administration which had backed and green-lighted the offensive via ambassador Galbraith. The recent acquittal is no less damning for the theater in Hague, however, and merely lays out the level of its pro-Imperial slant in a different way.

The arbitrariness of the ICTY may now be shown quickly that much more easily just by comparing its respective records on the Croatian Army (HV), and the army of Bosnian-Herzegovian Croats (the HVO). Given that at the time, Croatia, and the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina were led by one and the same political party (the HDZ) and that Croats of BiH were reliant on assistance from Croatia and sincerely appreciative of Zagreb there is no real reason to expect qualitative differences in their respective armies, as regards their politics, radicalism or propensity for atrocity. Neither should then one expect that HV and HVO members would be found guilty of war crimes at a just court of law at wildly different rates, given that these two forces took part in fighting with roughly comparable gore levels.* Is this the case with the ICTY?

The disposition of the ICTY toward other participants in the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s is glaringly obvious and may be laid out as a few simple rules. The non-natives, the Americans and the NATO Europeans do not get indicted at all. Bosnian Muslims and Albanians are indicted sparingly, and only to be cleared of guilt, or to receive slaps on the wrist. The designated native black hats, the Serbs, are prosecuted with vigor and receive heavy punishment.

ICTY's relationship with the Croats has been less clear-cut. They have been indicted far more sparingly than the Serbs, but also far more frequently than anyone else. Their cases have seen verdicts and sentences all over the place and included instances of dramatic reversals (Blaškić, Kupreškić, Gotovina). In fact in the recent judgment the appeals body split 3-2 to acquit Gotovina and Markač, so at least seemingly it was close to making an opposite decision.

That said, the last month's acquittal of Gotovina and Markač are less of a surprise than had been their earlier sentencing to long-term imprisonment. The latter outcome was unusual, because it went against the rule of thumb for Croats at the ICTY, which could be observed beneath the seeming ambiguity. The two senior Croatian army officers were the wrong kind of Croats to be condemned as criminals of war by the Empire-sponsored court. They were from Croatia when it takes a Bosnian-Herzegovian Croat to really wet the inquisition's appetites.

Albright's Hate Crime

So Madeline Albright is another US policymaker to out herself as an anti-Serbian chauvinist. Her charming exclamation the other day ("disgusting Serbs") puts her right there with the most candid of them, Richard Holbroke ("murderous assholes") and Joe Biden ("illiterate degenerates").

As Albright was promoting a book of hers in the Czech Republic the members of a local society, the Friends of Serbs in Kosovo, pulled a Jeremy Scahill on her and attended her book signing in Prague, but asked her if she could sign, not her book, but "her other works that made her famous in the Balkans", meaning the posters with images of the consequences of her policies they had brought along. Rather than attempt an inept and panicked defense like Wesley Clark had done when famously confronted by Scahill, Albright tore up the posters, stood up and shouted, and in the end proclaimed the Czech activists to be "disgusting Serbs".

That is some heavy stuff objectively speaking. That is in the sense that if Albright were to utter an equivalent, say "disgusting blacks" she would rightfully create many problems for herself and tarnish her reputation with the guardians of political correctness in her country. But since she only revealed her revulsion for the Serbs it will have no consequence of that sort. This is because anti-Serbian bigotry is not actually politically incorrect.

It should be kept in mind the anti-Serbian chauvinism was never generated by rogue hate merchants well beyond the margins of polite society, in the way anti-black, anti-Jewish, or anti-Muslim chauvinism are. It was generated by mainstream liberal politicians, intellectuals and journalists, which is to say by the very people who think of themselves as the indispensable guardians of political correctness and are otherwise the first to pounce on anything culturally insensitive or racist. In fact expressing revulsion for the Serbian people (aka 'Milošević's willing executioneers') has perversely been one way for public figures to cement their PC-ness and to demonstrate their moral righteousness with the PC crowd in America. Contempt for the Serbs as such never put one outside trendy, polite society, it could actually help one get in. 

While that is offensive, no one needed to care, if it was not that that type of attitude had real life consequences. In the first place a fact should be faced that Western intervention in the Balkans was not driven only by considerations of power and geopolitics, but also a straightforward feeling of hatred and malice against the Serbs, evident from the number of high-ranking officials who at the time, or since have revealed themselves to harbor such feelings. In the second, the xenophobic attitudes toward the Serbs determined what the intervention could get away with. We may recall that NATO conducted its bombing of Yugoslavia in an atmosphere where Thomas Friedman of the New York Times could openly, and without repercussions for his reputation demand the bombing be conducted in a less surgical manner so as to kill a greater number of non-combatants, and his counterpart at the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer could hail Serbian civilian deaths. Crazy and vicious stuff, but coming, not from some obscure KKK newsletter, but from Pulitzer Prize-winning opinion makers, writing for the two biggest American regime dailies.