C Delisio: The [Nov. 7, 2004] Referendum: Macedonia's Failed, Fatal Opportunity

[indigen]

The referendum's failure was a victory indeed, but a victory for fraud, deceit, slick manipulation, and organized government intimidation. Above all, it was a victory for a small group of violent and ignorant people, that is, the erstwhile "freedom fighters" of Ali Ahmeti's DUI party.


--------------

November 13, 2004
The Referendum: Macedonia's Failed, Fatal Opportunity
by Christopher Deliso

balkanalysis.com

According to the Western media and politicians, Sunday's failed referendum in Macedonia signifies the victory of multi-ethnic harmony, sagacious strategic vision, and popular faith in the "pro-Western" future their government is leading them toward.

This characterization is simply false, as Nebojsa Malic showed so well earlier this week. The referendum's failure was a victory indeed, but a victory for fraud, deceit, slick manipulation, and organized government intimidation. Above all, it was a victory for a small group of violent and ignorant people, that is, the erstwhile "freedom fighters" of Ali Ahmeti's DUI party.

In the following article, I intend to present this neglected side of the story – simply because no one else in the entire foreign press was interested in doing so – while also detailing the situation as it unfolded in one very special place this past Sunday.

What Was the Referendum About, and Who Supported It? The Actual Facts

The Nov. 7 national referendum in Macedonia was initiated by the World Macedonian Congress, a diaspora group that considers itself merely "patriotic," and whose dapper, soft-spoken president Todor Petrov could hardly be described as a "hardline nationalist," though reality has of course never stood in the way of jaundiced foreign journalists and their tired, meaningless clichés.


So-called "hardline nationalist" Todor Petrov of the World Macedonian Congress initiated the referendum proceedings.

This devious description of the pro-referendum supporters also neglected the fact that their ranks were swelled by political parties representing the citizens of Macedonia's non-Albanian ethnic minorities, in addition to the main Macedonian opposition parties. The major difference between the Albanians and these people – who, like the Turks and Roma, are truly downtrodden – is that the latter never use violence to get their way, whereas the former have always resorted to gunboat diplomacy to win their so-called "rights." This pattern persisted right up until the referendum, when it was discovered that Albanian paramilitaries were ready to blow up Skopje's water pipeline and open fire on residential neighborhoods if the referendum passed. This tacit threat, of course, only added to the Western frenzy to stop the referendum at all costs.

The referendum posed the following question to Macedonian citizens: do you wish to endorse your government's proposal for territorial redistricting, or do you wish for them to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new (and hopefully better) plan?

Was the Referendum Justifiable? More Facts

Supporters of the referendum pointed out in an August manifesto that the government's proposed redistricting plan contradicts Articles 2, 8, 21, and 114 of the Macedonian constitution, "which guarantee the civic concept of the state" by arbitrating along ethnic lines rather than "historical, cultural, and functional criteria." Further, in denying the very right to any future referendum, the law would also violate not only the Macedonian constitution but also Article 5 of the European Charter for Local Self-Government, which actually states (in slightly different wording than the Macedonian manifesto puts it) that "changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute."

Referendum backers also pointed out that, far from being faithful to the Ohrid Agreement that ended the 2001 war, the government's law "is in direct collision with paragraphs 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 3.2 of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, as the Framework Agreement states that 'the sovereignty of the Republic of Macedonia and the unitary character of the state are inviolable and the they must be preserved,' and that 'there are no territorial solutions for ethnic questions.'"

However, the government's law, which aims to decrease the number of municipalities by making them fewer and larger, was in fact created not through democratic debate but through closed-door negotiations between the ruling parties: the Macedonian SDSM and Albanian DUI. And it was pretty clear to everyone that this process simply involved "trading" territory in order to artificially create larger, more concentrated Albanian-majority areas, a disingenuous plot having enormous ramifications for Macedonia's future civil legislation, municipal leadership, public safety, and all-around national character. By signing on the dotted line, under the approving gaze of the West, the SDSM handed over a third of the country to the direct rule of gangsters and thugs, and practically assured that within a few years western Macedonia will be ethnically cleansed of all Macedonians. That this conclusion is not mere alarmism can be readily discerned from the past 20 years' experience in Kosovo, where practically all non-Albanians have been expelled, and in parts of western and northern Macedonia, where the same process is continuing. The territorial law will only expedite this trend.

Considering these facts and their implications, it would seem that referendum backers would have a pretty powerful case. But whenever I asked them how the representatives of the Great Powers reacted to their presentation of facts, the answer was always the same: either they would smile politely and say nothing, or else angrily shout them down while frothing at the mouth about ethnic harmony and Euro-Atlantic integration.

Political Dimensions

[....]

http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=3973

[indigen]

The ‘Right’ to Remain Silent
by Nebojsa Malic, November 12, 2004

In a world where “democracy” means anything the Empire wants it to mean, and is used as a tool of conquest, it stands to reason that Powers that Love Democracy meet any actual instances thereof (flawed as they may be) with unrelenting hostility. Conversely, any abuses of democracy – such as elections in occupied Kosovo – are routinely praised as the paragon of virtue. Anyone who thinks this doesn’t make perfect sense is simply too “reality-based.”

Thus the same people who just three weeks ago urged Kosovo Serbs not to boycott the sham elections in that occupied province (with no success), urged the inhabitants of Macedonia to boycott a referendum on redistricting, which was actually meaningful – and didn’t find it the least bit troublesome.

Cheering Failure

“Macedonia was a rung higher on the ladder to EU and NATO,” proclaimed Reuters Monday, gloating over the failure of the referendum due to low voter turnout. The failure was met with resounding hurrahs from Brussels and Washington to their lowliest acolytes on the front lines. EU foreign policy commissar Javier Solana actually congratulated Macedonians for sinking the referendum. Even al-Jazeera (!) jumped on the bandwagon, celebrating the defeat of an “anti-Muslim move.”

Just what exactly was the Macedonian referendum about, to rile up the Empire so?

The Opposite of Truth

Such a question is perfectly legitimate; the shrill chorus of detractors never once managed to say why precisely rejecting the redistricting law would be a threat to peace, ethnic coexistence, and Macedonia’s path to EU and NATO. Instead, the Empire and its media handmaidens plied a series of misconceptions so common to their view of the Balkans.

One of the main accusations was that the referendum opposed decentralization. However, the law that actually passed in the Sobranie was not about decentralization, but redistricting. Under the new law, Macedonia would actually have fewer municipalities, so that would be a centralization of sorts. The new boundaries were purposefully drawn to create a substantial Albanian presence in the capital and give Albanians administrative control over the few remaining enclaves of Macedonians in the west of the country. The “rights” Albanians have demanded since their violence resulted in the Ohrid Agreement are actually entitlements at taxpayer expense.

The referendum, organized in scrupulous observation of Macedonian laws (unlike, say, the UCK terrorism through which some Albanians expressed their aspirations), was the people’s last resort to indicate their displeasure to the government. It was taken as insolence, both by Skopje authorities and the Empire, and treated accordingly: with threats, lies, and manipulation. Facing such overwhelming opposition, it is perhaps understandable why so many Macedonians decided to give up.

All the Dirty Tricks

Pressure and threats started as early as Oct. 11, and grew steadily ever since. At the end of October, NATO’s deputy chief, the UK European Minister, and the EU special envoy all spoke against the referendum. Perhaps the most irritating was the EU envoy, one Michael Sahlin, whose obnoxious drivel was eagerly aired by IWPR.

But the dirtiest tricks were reserved for the weekend of the referendum, when Washington dropped a diplomatic bomb of recognizing Macedonia under that name. At the insistence of Greece, the country had previously been known as “[.....].” The move was correctly identified as an attempt to derail the referendum, but the full extent of statist deviousness was yet to come. As celebrations extended into Saturday, the government in Skopje suddenly lifted the ban – a strange one – on bars and clubs operating past midnight. A government that tries to get its people too drunk to vote: is that not just the apotheosis of democratic values?

Why Macedonia?

At first glance, there doesn’t appear to be a reason behind Empire’s relentless malfeasance in Macedonia. What could possibly drive Washington and Brussels to crush Macedonians at every turn and appease Albanian aspirations? Some speculate, and not without reason, that the Empire is afraid of antagonizing Albanians. That may be giving Albanians entirely too much credit, however. Though many of them no doubt think they are driving Imperial policy, it is more likely they are being taken for a ride.

EU’s policy in the Balkans – if there is such a thing – is murky. In all likelihood, Eurocrats see the region as territory to be annexed eventually. With conflict devastating their economy and society, Balkans countries are clamoring to join up, and the EU is more than happy to oblige: just fill out 10,000 pages of forms and wait in line…

Washington’s goals are less difficult to discern: control of the Balkans as a strategic pivot toward both the uppity Europeans and uppity Russians. Richard Holbrooke wrote unabashedly in his memoir that the Bosnia intervention sought to re-establish “American leadership.” Europeans know it; in a recent Guardian column, Jonathan Steele argues that’s “leadership” Europe no longer needs:

“An alliance which should have wound up when the Soviet Union collapsed now serves almost entirely as a device for giving the U.S. an unfair and unreciprocated droit de regard over European foreign policy.”

As for the Russian angle, it is obvious not just from the deployment of American assets in the Caucasus and Central Asia under the guise of the “war on terror” – even as Washington supports Chechen terrorism –but also from the attempts at conquering Ukraine and Belarus through “democratic” revolutions.

Macedonia, sitting as it does between Bulgaria and Albania (countries that have traditionally supported outside empires), and between Serbia and Greece (countries that have not), is key to Imperial control of the Balkans. And there you go.

Managed Mayhem

Despite constant talk about “stability” and “peace,” the Empire wants neither. Stable and peaceful nations cannot be controlled or bullied into obedience; they must be persuaded, and the Empire considers itself above persuasion. The strategy seems to be “divide and rule,” first developed by Romans and perfected by the British. At this point, it is worth remembering the U.S. system was modelled after the Roman Republic, while its foreign policy has been dominated by admirers of British imperialism for well over a century; that such a philosophy became dominant is not at all surprising.

In the Balkans, Yugoslav leader Tito had employed this particular strategy for 35 years. He kept Yugoslavia at peace by sub-dividing Serbs and encouraging others’ ethnic separatism, then slapping it down whenever it got too far out of hand. Tito’s “peace” was nothing more than managed social warfare – precisely what takes place in any democratic political system.

Futile Submission

To the Empire, the Balkans is an interesting strategic area, and the historical/ethnic/religious feuds of its inhabitants are merely a useful way of establishing control. The legitimate aspirations of Albanians, Macedonians, or anyone else don’t matter; whatever helps the Empire control the region does. There is no logic, no principle in the actions of the Empire, except power.

Albanians seem to have a grasp of this, whether because they are currently favored by Empire, or because their tribal society is based on violence. Macedonians, on the other hand, appear clueless. Like Serbs, who lack any semblance of cohesion in dealing with Imperial occupiers of Kosovo, Macedonians have adopted a “strategy” of appeasement not as a means to some end, defined or otherwise, but as an end in itself.

No wonder the Empire is walking all over the Serbs and the Macedonians. If they cannot articulate what they want, much less fight for it, the Nietzschean Empire sees them as weak, “slave people,” deserving to be dominated by their betters.

original.antiwar.com_malic_2004

For fair use only.