The lexicon of imperialist pejoratives reserved for the Balkan peoples is full of such terms as quarrelsome, feuding, fractious, troublesome, and forever squabbling among themselves.
Not only do these pejoratives symbolize the arrogance of the so-called great European powers against the smaller ones, but they are indicative of an attitude toward oppressed people in general.
Possibility of a larger conflict
At the moment, a great deal of concern is being expressed among the imperialists about the spread of unrest in Yugoslavia and the possibility it will turn into a larger conflict that could draw the big powers into it.
This is pure invention.
There is no possibility that the fratricidal struggle in Yugoslavia can draw in the big powers and widen the struggle into a world conflagration, as supposedly happened during the first and second world wars. On the contrary, the opposite is true. It is when the big imperialist powers foment, stimulate and deliberately create venomous, divisive, fratricidal struggles that a big war can develop. Should that happen, it will be the work of the imperialists. It will be an imperialist war, and not a war of the Yugoslav people or of the Balkans in general.
True, there were two Balkan wars, one in 1912 and the second in 1913. But it is interesting to note that the armistice agreements were made under the auspices of the European imperialist powers.
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria by a Serbian in 1914 might have been the spark that set off the conflagration of the First World War, but the basic cause of the war, as we all know now, was the struggle of the great imperialist powers for the division of world markets and resources. Such a struggle was inevitable and would have taken place with or without the assassination of the archduke.
Let us not be taken in once again by the canard that quarrelsome, small and oppressed countries lure the imperialist giants reluctantly and unwillingly into world conflagrations. Let us not take for good coin the pompous declarations of Secretary of State James Baker that the U.S. government is interested in maintaining the unity of Yugoslavia. Nor should we take seriously the warning of the U.S. to Slovenia and Croatia not to secede from Yugoslavia, lest it lead to a "full-scale civil war."
We know how much the Pentagon abhors war by its military expedition into Iraq and the horrible destruction it has caused, which will last for decades. The same applies to the proclamations of Britain, France, Germany and Italy about their deep concerns and sympathy for those who have already died or been wounded--victims of the steady dismemberment of what remains of the Yugoslavia that emerged from World War II. That formidable socialist republic was the revolutionary creation of the workers and peasants.
The post-1945 Yugoslavia had little if anything in common with the Yugoslavia created after World War I. That was a patchwork concocted by the imperialist powers under the auspices of the hypocritical Wilsonian democracy and calculated to suit the interests of the Allied imperialists as against the Central Powers, the German, Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires.
Post-war Yugoslavia
The Yugoslavia that emerged from the carnage of World War II, however, was a monumental turning point in the history of the Balkan peoples, and a truly great contribution to the socialist revolutions of Europe and Asia.
The Yugoslav masses, with communist leadership, had won a heroic, incredible victory over Nazi fascist imperialism. The defeat of Mussolini's and Hitler's armies was effected almost exclusively by internal forces--the workers and peasants, plus the few bourgeois and petty bourgeois elements who did not join the reactionary puppet regimes set up by the Hitlerites (the Chetniks under Mihailovic in Serbia and the Ustashi in Croatia).
In Eastern Europe as a whole, the main burden in the victory over Nazism was carried by the Soviet Red Army. But not in Yugoslavia or Albania. There the struggle against the Nazis and fascists was bound up with a revolution of the workers and peasants. The little help that came late in the day from the West might have had its significance, but it was not at all decisive. It was the internal class forces that overwhelmed the seemingly omnipotent Nazi war machine and then unified the six republics, holding them together on the basis of a new class structure.
In fact, it has been argued that the revolution in Yugoslavia had military significance for the USSR. Vladimir Dedijer, in his book on Tito, said that "What made Hitler particularly angry was that the events [the revolution] in Yugoslavia had upset his plans for operations against the USSR. Because of the military action against Yugoslavia, Hitler ordered that the carrying out of `Operation Barbarossa,' the attack on the USSR, be postponed first for four, and then for six weeks. It was this delay that brought the Russian winter into the battle for Moscow."
Even if somewhat overstated, this brings into focus the magnitude of the Yugoslav revolutionary struggle against fascism and the significance of establishing a workers' state, if not in the heart of Europe, at least on its southeastern flank.
During most of the war, Britain and the U.S. were supporting and giving asylum to the royalist elements. It was only in the last stages, when victory was almost an accomplished fact, that they gave aid to the partisans, but it was by no means decisive.
West's real role in crisis
What is the role of the Western imperialists today with regard to the crisis in Yugoslavia?
At this moment, and only for the moment, the imperialist powers and most of all the U.S. regard the struggle in Yugoslavia as a diversion from their more important struggles--in the Middle East most of all, but also in Asia, Africa and Latin America. None of them are ready to get absorbed in an exclusively European struggle, especially if it turns out to be a protracted one.
The U.S. and Britain are taking a stance against secession and for negotiation of a confederation of some sort. But this is only for the moment. What concerns them most is to completely line up Yugoslavia with Western imperialist interests so as to leave no vestige of the socialist achievements of the Yugoslav Revolution.
While their pro forma diplomatic attitude is for a united Yugoslavia, they are making it very clear through the media that bourgeois public opinion is solidly for the so-called independence movement led by pro-imperialist Croatian and Slovenian counterrevolutionaries.
The British press is more openly hostile to the Yugoslav federal government.
The European powers, however, are by no means sitting idly by. They have hurriedly convened the 12 European Community states which have long been projected as the unifying political form for Europe. And they have further sought to widen their authority by attempting to coordinate with a broader European organization, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), in order to send observers to effect a cease-fire in Yugoslavia.
It is of interest that this delegation is composed of representatives from Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and the Netherlands. They are sending Luxembourg in order to say: See, in the West we have independent small nations. But in truth Luxembourg represents the interests of France and Belgium.
The key person in the group is Gianni DeMichelis, the Italian foreign minister. The Financial Times of London (July 2), which has carried more news about Yugoslavia than any other English-speaking paper, has this to say of the delegation:
"There was no doubt that the speed and persistence of EC mediation the past few days was largely due to Mr. Gianni DeMichelis. His government has long been worried about instability in neighboring Yugoslavia. Neither the Luxembourgers, the Dutch nor the Portuguese will bring the same passionate interest to bear in resolving the crisis."
How noble of the Italian government to be so passionate about this struggle! How magnanimous and above the battle!
Italy and Trieste
Every knowledgeable Yugoslav, and above all every Slovene, should know that this is sheer hypocrisy. Imperialist Italy has a very deep and abiding interest in Yugoslavia. The older generation must remember the long and bitter struggle Yugoslavia had to carry out against the wiles of Italian, British and U.S. imperialist diplomacy after World War II over the port city of Trieste. It had been liberated from the Nazis by the Yugoslav partisans only to be partitioned after the war so as to make it a naval and military base threatening Yugoslavia.
Trieste became the pivotal point of struggle between Yugoslavia and the Western imperialist powers, who were supporting Italy's claims to the city and pushing the Italian government in a provocative struggle against Yugoslavia. The struggle over Trieste seemed at times about to break out into open warfare.
It took much courage and skillful diplomacy on the part of the Yugoslav revolutionary government to see to it that U.S. imperialism did not, through what was by that time its Italian ally, provoke a military confrontation. It wasn't until 1954 that the matter was finally settled by the UN Security Council. Trieste was divided into two zones, one occupied by Italy and the other by Yugoslavia.
How ironic that after such a long struggle, Italian imperialism could now be casting its eye again on Trieste! And that Slovenia should become the spearhead, along with Croatia, of counterrevolution and pro-imperialist "independence" from Yugoslavia.
This aids the dismemberment of what had been a socialist country. For the moment, however, we have to consider Yugoslavia as an oppressed country. Our duty is to defend it against bourgeois reaction as well as overt and covert imperialist aggression. In this connection it is important to note that a group of apparently communist officers in the Yugoslav military seem to be wise to the wiles of imperialism.
The Financial Times of London (July 1) printed excerpts of what is said to be a document drawn up last January by a group of 200 communist officers around the general staff. The main points of the document included:
"The West is aiming to divide Yugoslavia by attacking the communists." No statement could be truer than that.
"Socialism is not finished and has not been brought to its knees. Yugoslavia though paying a high price has managed to overcome the first strike of the anti-communist hysteria wave."
We don't have the document, and unfortunately only excerpts were published in the Financial Times. The New York Times of July 1 also refers to the group in an attempt to disparage the army.
The New York Times says, "Most of the officers are members of a new political party called the Communist League--Movement for Yugoslavia, founded by the former army chief of staff. It is dedicated to carrying forward the principles of Yugoslavia's disbanded Communist Party."
Capitalist market
Of course, there are a multitude of nationality problems in Yugoslavia. But it is impossible to discuss them in the framework presented by the capitalist press. Like its coverage of the Soviet Union, the capitalist press does not explain why, for 40 years (except for developments in the Kosovo area which is mostly Albanian in nationality), there was no breakup and no violence. The flareup of nationalism originated with a turnaway from socialist centralized planning toward a capitalist market. This is what has brought about the strife, in both the USSR and Yugoslavia.
It is not accidental that it's the military in both countries which is firmest in trying to hold the union together and at the same time refusing to abandon communist ideology and socialist principles in favor of bourgeois ideology. The military in the Soyuz caucus of the Soviet parliament is very much akin to group in Yugoslavia.
They should be supported as against the efforts at dismemberment of the bourgeoisie, which is rushing to overturn anything left of a progressive and socialist character and can only be a tool of the IMF and the World Bank.