|
|
|
Antiwar
Macedonia Capitulates
by Christopher Deliso
November 20, 2001
A NEW WAR, OR JUST THE
OLD ONE AGAIN?
After
September 11th, life has gone on in Macedonia, though the world has
taken but little notice. Violence too has continued unabated, though Macedonia's
complaints of Albanian terrorism have fallen on deaf ears in the West. The
failure to get the NLA labeled as "terrorists" has led to its logical
conclusion: the passing of major constitutional capitulations, as envisaged in
the treacherous Treaty of Ochrid. The
US has announced, with much fanfare, that the "war on terrorism" will
not be a conventional one it is and will be fought militarily,
diplomatically, and economically. There was talk immediately after 9/11 that
American policy towards Macedonia might actually undergo a complete reversal;
evidence that (1) bin Laden and other mujaheedin had connections with the
Albanians would seem to justify a more pro-Macedonia position. Yet for all this
the US continues to thwart Macedonia, even without the enforcement of most of
its relocated NATO troops. And as the dictates of the new
"unconventional" war spell out, the war against Macedonia being
fought on behalf of the NLA will largely be conducted surreptitiously. The
media's recent focus on all things Afghani has aided US duplicity against
Macedonia, which is, as usual, utterly helpless. A PROLOGUE ON SPADES
A few
weeks ago at Stanford University, I saw the Indian Consul-General and his
Russian counterpart speak out against "terrorism." To a credulous
crowd of graying Americans, they bemoaned a common problem: the lack of a
commonly understood definition of terrorism. "It's high time,"
declared Consul Viswanathan, "for us to call a spade a spade, and
recognize these people for what they are terrorists." By
"these people," of course, Mr. Viswanathan was referring to the
Pakistanis in Kashmir. That this seminar on spades was being used as merely a
public relations tool for two powerful US allies was further illustrated by
Consul-General Popov's condemnation of "terrorists" in Chechnya. Yet
my own write-in question, about why Albanian terrorism in Macedonia has gone
unrecognized, was not answered. Folks,
I'm not interested in saying if they're right or wrong. All around the world,
one man's sadistic terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. All I want to
point is that this hard-fought battle of pens and keyboards (over who deserves
the loaded "terrorist" appellation), has enormous consequences for
political and military intervention. Indeed, semantic control translates
immediately into political power; what might be a useful "spade" for
a major power like India or Russia is, for little Macedonia, only a tool to be
used for digging its own grave. Yet in this respect, the war was over before it
even started. BEWARE THE IDES OF
MARCH
Macedonia's
downfall was set up a long time ago, way back in March 2001. Given US support
for the KLA in Kosovo, it was not hard to see how this friendly relationship
would be extended southward, in the event of an Albanian uprising against
Macedonia. Anything otherwise would have meant the embarrassing admission that
the US-instigated war in Kosovo had been an absolute disaster something NATO
had not the stomach to admit. SETTING A PATTERN:
MEDIA COVERAGE IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE WAR
The
most faithful barometer of US policy in the media has traditionally been the New
York Times. Last winter, when the "National Liberation Army"
first reared its ugly head in Macedonia, the coverage in the Times would
prove decisive to Macedonia's fate. Would it win or lose the PR war? Were
claims of terrorism justified, and even if they were, would the United States
(then happily terrorist-free) even care? During
March 2001, the New York Times covered or mentioned Macedonia in 29
articles and 4 editorials. As always, choice of adjectives was crucial to
developing a coherent policy. And so, we find that the NLA was described as
"gunmen" (4 times); as "irregulars" (1 time); as
"militants" (11 times); as "extremists" (7 times); and as
"fighters" (14 times). On 24 occasions, the NLA was linked to an
"insurgency;" on 4 others, to a "rebellion." Most telling
were the number of times they were described as "ethnic" (64 times),
and, most crucial of all, as "rebels" (153 times). The Times
only mentioned the NLA as "terrorists" on 8 occasions. The first (on
3/19) was in reporting the French government's labeling of the NLA as
terrorists. The second (3/20), in apparent reaction to the French designation,
quoted an NLA commander who said "don't call us terrorists." On the
same day, Javier Solana called the NLA "terrorists." Fourth was on 21
March, when the Times referred to the NLA "as a group it (the
Macedonian government) calls terrorists." References 5-8 derive from
quotes made by Macedonian officials; respectively, President Trajkovski,
Spokesman Milososki, Trajkovski again, and National Security Advisor Nikola
Dimitrov. THE WEAPON MACEDONIA
WILL NEVER GET
Reviewing
the evidence, a general pattern becomes clear. Even in the earliest days of the
war, the US media had made up its mind about which side to back. As was noted
even then, despite the rhetoric, time would be on the side of armed militants.
Although the Times coverage was not then especially pro-NLA, it
tolerated the Albanian position well enough by being NLA-neutral, and branding
their members as overwhelmingly "ethnic rebels." The maintenance of
this neutrality was essential: it allowed a gradual change in the media,
towards the unabashed love of the NLA that resulted in Frowick's secret deal in
Prizren, the MPRI farce at Aracinovo, and the latest US betrayal, which we will
soon discuss Perhaps
back in March, the reticence of journalists to use the loaded term
"terrorists" made the less-accurate "rebels" a more
palatable choice for New York Times correspondents. Yet surely, no such
reluctance remains now: in the wake of 9/11, the word "terrorists"
has been repeated ad nauseam throughout the media. One could not even begin to
count the frequency of the word's recent usage: it would be like trying to
count the grains of sand on a beach, or the specks of dirt in a freshly-dug
grave. This
leads to the obvious conclusion that the word "terrorist" is just
another lethal weapon in the arsenals of powerful countries, like Russia,
India, and chief of all, the United States. Indeed, it would be an easier task
for little Macedonia to develop a comprehensive nuclear weapons program, than
for it to acquire this one crucial word for its own defense. The obvious double
standard at work, however, has not been lost on some. LATCHING ON
Many
commentators have latched on to this contradiction the alleged presence of
terrorists in Afghanistan, but not in Macedonia. The former Canadian ambassador
to Yugoslavia, James Bissett, reiterated it last week. Joseph Farah also commented
on the strange dichotomy. Yet perhaps Nebosja Malic, equipped with that
perverse Balkan sense of humor, put it best when he said that Macedonia
"continues to be framed for its own murder" by NATO and Western
diplomats, urging the country to give in to NLA demands and in doing so, show
that violence gets results. MACEDONIA AFTER 9/11
THE CONFLICT SEETHES
One
would have thought that, between the onset of colder weather and the
embarrassment of being linked to bin Laden, the NLA would have gone on its
winter vacation by now. Yet quite the reverse has occurred. Since 9/11, NATO
has increased pressure on Macedonia to amnesty the NLA the very individuals
who had spent the last few months blowing up police stations, bombing churches,
and carving up the bodies of civilians. Under the fiction of being peacefully
"disarmed," the NLA (according to NATO) now no longer poses a threat
to Macedonian stability. The truth is, the militants merely handed over a few
rusty guns, sent the good stuff to Kosovo, and disappeared into the civilian
community to reappear, no doubt, when the mountain snows melt next Spring. Although
most of the world has not cared to know, the violence has continued in
Macedonia since 9/11. Sporadic gun battles go on still around Tetovo and in
western Macedonian villages. If the Macedonian authorities even try to reclaim
their territory, like on 1 October, they are shot at. An unexplained car bomb
three days later killed one Macedonian. In a miniature version of the
"Kosovo scenario" on 17 October, two Albanians were killed by
"friendly fire" that is, by rival Albanians. Indeed, if western
Macedonia becomes "liberated" (as its neighbor to the north is) such
anarchic, fratricidal violence may soon become commonplace. It
was dιjΰ vu in Tearce on 22 October, when a police station was bombed a
repeat of the very same attack that inaugurated the terrorist campaign in
January 2001. Reality Macedonia reported (on 15 November) that the
general lawlessness near Kumanovo has resulted in house robberies. On the same
day, Albanian gunmen near Tetovo "severely attacked" Macedonian
security forces. ANOTHER ARACINOVO?
Yet
for all this, the worst violence in recent weeks may have been orchestrated by
an American "diplomat," James Pardew. If the allegations are in fact
true, then it is clear that the US is playing a reckless game of Russian
roulette, attacking bin Laden affiliates around the world but continuing to
defend his former Albanian allies in Macedonia. On
12 November, three Macedonian policemen were ambushed and killed while
attempting to take control of a suspected mass grave. During the firefight,
Albanian terrorists also kidnapped 100 Macedonian civilians and held them
hostage. It was supposed to be a routine operation; the Macedonian police
called in to Pardew and NATO beforehand, giving them explicit details of the
operation. It was meant to be coordinated with NATO, completely nonviolent, and
Pardew agreed to help. Yet
somehow, it all went wrong. Macedonia's Dnevnik claims that Pardew set up
the slaughter. After meeting with the Macedonians, and promising logistical
help in cordoning off the area, he hastily met with Albanian-friendly advisors
to deliberately sabotage the move: "The
American envoy made his final decision at this meeting: 'No logistics will be
sent. We'll leave [the Macedonians] alone, so they can learn their lesson.'
Pardew ordered his assistants to instantly inform those in the 'crisis terrain'
about the coming of the police, with an added suggestion to prepare a 'welcome.'
The epilogue: a black day ending with three killed policemen, two wounded
policemen, and about a hundred kidnapped civilians." WESTERN MEDIA WOLVES
SCENT FRESH KILL
This
story, of course, is not mentioned in the mainstream media. In what amounted to
an apology for the NLA and the Ochrid "peace treaty," a recent
Reuters report (16 November), tried to justify Pardew's brazen betrayal: "Hardline
(Macedonian) nationalists had almost wrecked the peace accord days before when
the hawkish police minister sent special forces into the rebel Albanian
heartland, leading to fighting, arrests and retaliatory kidnappings." The Reuters
reporter, of course, does not explain the reason for the police's visit to the
"rebel Albanian heartland." It is all made to seem like yet another
oppressive and heavy-handed Macedonian attack on defenseless Albanian
civilians. Yet, we must remember how to read such reports. Indeed, it would be
more accurate to replace "hardline nationalists" with
"patriots," and "peace accord" with "forced
capitulation of sovereignty." The level of anti-Macedonian rhetoric
present in this report rises to levels not seen since August when the US was
comfortably terrorism-free, and able to make blasι statements about the need
for "confidence-building" measures and "political
solutions." Yet in reality, the Macedonians were forced to capitulate by
changing their constitution, under the threat of continued violence from
US-trained Albanian militants. This would be like giving bin Laden a pen and saying,
"go for it, Osama, throw in a new amendment to the US Constitution! Go
crazy! Just don't attack us again, please!" THE NEXT ALBANIAN
OFFENSIVE?
Would
that a scrap of paper was Macedonia's only problem. Yet the NLA has learned in
2001 that violence gets results and also legitimizes its perpetrators. Now
that Ali Ahmeti has become a political personality in his own right, the agenda
of terrorism has won out in Macedonia. We should have no illusions, however,
that the violence will stop, or the ridiculous claims end. While NATO chooses
to look the other way to the fact that criminals and terrorists have assumed
political power in Kosovo and Macedonia, the reality that Balkans
terrorism is rewarded becomes glaringly obvious. Given
NATO's disinterest, it's no wonder that Macedonia and Serbia are planning new
defense cooperation against Albanian terrorists operating on their common
border. And, indeed, not a moment too soon: "Dnevnik
daily says a large-scale offensive will be launched by the ethnic Albanians in
Macedonia, Kosovo and southern Serbia, following the elections in Kosovo on
November 17th. Roughly 200 ethnic-Albanian gunmen, NLA members and members of
Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) had stationed near Skopje's village of Radusa.
The terrorists are to deliver a severe and swift blow on Macedonian security
forces at Radusa-Blace region in Macedonia and Strbce-Brezovica region in
Kosovo." MEET THE ALBANIAN
NATIONAL ARMY
With
the allegedly disarmed NLA now elevated to the level of respectable negotiating
partners, and Macedonia's constitutional capitulations made, one would think
that the Albanians would be satisfied. Yet what would be the fun of life
without terrorism? The NLA, therefore, has metamorphosed beautifully into the
ANA the "Albanian National Army." Just as the NLA was once known as
the KLA, the slippery shift of nomenclature continues a total farce to
everyone with a pulse excepting, of course, Western "peacemakers." Yet,
unlike the "equal rights" posturing of the NLA, its clear from the
ANA's own press releases that they will be satisfied with nothing less than
complete separation and autonomy: "All
territories where (a) majority of Albanians live, where the Albanians'
properties were attacked, massacred and destroyed are declared as forbidden
zone for the Macedonian repressive forces, so if they enter would be considered
as legitimate targets and would be attacked without any warning." A BITTER PILL
Western
diplomats continue to try and justify their cooperation with Albanian
extremists in Kosovo and Macedonia, in the face of all right reason and
everything that has been seen in 2001. The acronym is unimportant; whether you
call it the KLA, the NLA, the ANA, or the Liberation Army of Presevo, Medvedja,
and Bujanovac, the organization and its goal are one and the same: to create an
ethnically homogenous "Greater Albania," at the expense of its
neighbors' sovereignty. This is as true now as it was last year, as true as it
was in 1878, when the Albanian "League of Prizren" first advocated
the idea. After all the unabating violence in Macedonia this year, the US and
its allies remain in serious denial (or secret complicity) if they have other
beliefs on the matter. Yet
somehow, over the past 10 months, this objective has been forgotten, or
concealed. It is especially bitter to recall that early on, the West briefly
saw the situation for what it was. Thus EU security chief Javier Solana, back
on March 20 ("Macedonia gives rebels ultimatum," New York Times).
Speaking about the NLA, Solana declared: "Nothing,
and I mean nothing, will be obtained by violent means
it is a mistake to
negotiate with terrorists in this particular case, and we do not recommend
it." There
is nothing left to say; the betrayal speaks for itself. |