For many Americans the Balkan issue was settled by the Dayton Accords of 1995, which ended the wars entailed in the break-up of Yugoslavia. Little public attention has been paid to the area since then though, as is well-known, the structure of government in Bosnia-Herzegovina is unstable due to the challenge of the autonomy of Republica Srpska, the status of the Croatian sector of Bosnia-Hercegovina and renewed intervention by Turkey in the region.
Within the former Yugoslavia the Bosnian-Hercegovinian territories were controlled approximately as follows: 45% by Orthodox Serbs, 28% by Muslim Bosniaks, and 25% by Roman Catholic Croats. Following Dayton the trend has been to expel Serbs from their ancestral lands. Quasi-independent Republica Srpska which seeks detachment from the B-H Federation is their refuge, controlled 90% by Serbs. The B-H Federation is now controlled 53% by Bosniaks, 41% by Croats and 9% by Serbs. Alongside this, Serbs have largely been forced out of their ancestral lands in Kosovo.
The name of the game has been ethnic cleansing, the destruction of cultural and religious monuments of opposing ethnic groups, especially Christian ones by radical Muslims, and the heightening of ethnic tensions. Canadian leaders who were involved in the Balkans, namely General Lewis MacKenzie (he commanded NATO forces), and James Bissett (Canada’s former Ambassador to Belgrade), have for some time been cautioning the West about the imbalance and inequities created by the Dayton Accords. In a recent letter to the Edmonton Journal (May 11, 2012) Bissett warned against revisionist attempts to further distort the events of World War II and the 1990s War with the intent of entrenching in the West a negative view of Serbs.
Policies and the intent of Turkey
Key factors in all of this, hidden to most Americans and not reported by the media, are the policies and the intent of Turkey, a member of NATO but still not a member of the European Union.
With the failure of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to win re-election -- he resisted Turkey’s bid to join the EU -- Turkey is set to re-kindle its attempts to join the EU. The Turkish foreign minister has already said that with the election of François Hollande in France, Turkey hopes for a new course to be set in Turkish-EU relations. The Turkish parliament is quickly dealing with measures to window-dress its application by introducing bills to improve human rights in Turkey.
Turkey enjoys one of the world’s fastest growing newly industrialized economies, listed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as having the 18th largest economy out of a total of over 180 countries. This strength is accentuated by the current failure of the Greek economy. The tensions between Turkey and Greece over the disposition of Cyprus are severe, and economic competition between them is sharp.
It is estimated that well over 3,000,000 migrant Turks live and work in EU countries and the United Kingdom. I recall four decades ago driving from Zagreb to Belgrade only to find that the entire 230 miles was one massive traffic jam of Turks making their Spring trek from central Europe to Turkey.
A key difficulty in the West is that few know the Turkish language and fewer still follow political and cultural trends in Turkey. Thus the trend among Turkish intellectuals and politicians toward neo-Ottomanism escapes attention. Readers should take particular note of the recent essay by Darko Tanasković, “Turkey and the Balkans: Old Traditions, New Aspirations,” (Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs VI:2, 2012). Multi-linguist, Professor of Oriental Studies at the University of Belgrade and former Yugoslav Ambassador to Ankara, Tanasković documents the developing trend among prominent policy makers and those who implement policy in Ankara to re-assert neo-Ottomanism in the Balkans.
Most striking in this essay is a point that will surprise policy makers in the West: While Turkey has been allowed and encouraged by the West to participate politically in the Balkans as an “ally” and useful “contractor,” Turkey’s leaders see their role not merely as regional cooperators, but as symbolic of their neo-Ottoman aspirations. They want to re-establish their centuries-old dominance in the region. They see themselves not as Asian but as “bona fide Europeans” -- that the Balkans are their natural sphere of influence. For over five centuries Ottoman Rumelia (Turkey in Europe) embraced Serbia, Bosnia, Hercegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece. Professor Tanasković helpfully furnishes links to the views of Turkish policy makers on this issue.
During the past century five powers have competed for influence or dominance in the Balkans: Austro-Hungary, Germany, Russia, the Vatican, and (since the 1990s war) the United States, each and together being of two minds about the role that should be allowed to Turkey. Add to this the peripheral role of France, notably the resistance of President Sarkozy to allow Turkey into the EU.
Multiculturalism is now dead
Multiculturalism is now dead. Central European leaders are wondering how to curtail the rising political and judicial (sharia) power of Islamic populations within their ranks and the fragmentation of their historic national cultural heritage. They are beginning to realize that contemporary Islamic strategy initially demands religious tolerance as a minority in Western countries followed by regional control via culture. Once cultural dominance is firmly established military force is implemented only if needed. Economic measures that force conversion to Islam follow. For Islamic leaders culture is the real power.
Regarding the Balkans, there is no discernible coherent Western strategy for the future. The breakup of Yugoslavia appears to have accomplished what Hitler aimed to do: give Germany and Austria economic dominance and concomitant political influence in the Balkans. In this America has been complicit.
Croatia was recognized by Germany as a separate state in 1991. Heirs of Nazi-oriented Ustasha ideology continue to haunt the country. Both Croatia and newly independent Slovenia are firmly within the German-Austrian economic sphere.
Most Serbs have either fled or have been driven out of Kosovo. Its Albanian leadership is currently charged with facilitating or winking the eye at the worst of drug and human trafficking in Europe, including the sale of body parts from kidnapped victims. Scores of thousands of Christian churches, priceless medieval monastery architectural treasures, Christian cemeteries, and other Christian landmarks have been destroyed, desecrated or made inaccessible to Christian Serbs.
Greater Albania
The ideal of a Greater Albania around the Kosovo core is being propagated throughout Albania, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Kosovo, the Sandzak of Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia, which puts the lie to the canard that brought in NATO forces when it was alleged that Milosevic and nationalist Serbs intended to create a Greater Serbia. It should be borne in mind that Serbs themselves rose up and overthrew Milosevic. Further de-stabilization of Serbia may be in the offing as Hungarian minority activists in Serbia, aided by sympathizers in Hungary and Romania, foment unrest in the northern Serbian Vojvodina sector, which is made up of Srem, Banat and Bačka.
In Bosnia-Hercegovina, Moslems aided by Turkish resources and by the remnants of the Mujahideen which the Clinton Administration imported into Bosnia from Afghanistan, seek dominance over Orthodox Serbs and Roman Catholic Croats.
The Vatican’s hands are more and more tied so far as political aid to the Roman Catholic Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina is concerned, which is ironic in view of the Vatican’s cooperation with Germany as early facilitators of the breakup of Yugoslavia. It should be borne in mind that Bosnia-Hercegovina has been the “face-off” area between Byzantium and the Vatican going back to the late middle ages.
Macedonia, now a quasi-independent entity, is controlled by the United States through our large Bondsteel Military Base. This is virtually the only attempt America is making to forestall the economic takeover of the Balkans by Germany from central Europe or by Islamic Turkey from the near east.
Russia, viewed by some in Serbia and Bulgaria as a hedge against non-slavic hegemony in the Balkans has other, more important fish to fry, despite occasional mouthings of pan-slavist mantras from Moscow. Tito knew that well, while some Serbs since Tito have had to learn the lesson the hard way, suffering pierced hands from the broken mythical slav culture walking sticks on which they leaned.
The political lever of neo-Ottomanism is the power of culture
The political lever of neo-Ottomanism is the power of culture. Most Balkan Muslim students who study abroad are educated in Turkey. This should be a lesson to America. Neo-Ottomanism is a civilizational thrust, not merely a current ephemeral political ideology. Turkey’s future internationally depends upon the number and effectiveness of its footprint zones in the Balkans.
The lesson from all of this which America must re-learn is to understand historically and ideologically who its best friends and allies in the Balkans have been and are. That is the Serbs. Not necessarily their political class at any given time -- any more than the political class of any one of the other Balkan nations -- but the Serbian people. Through two world wars against sundry tyrannies in the interests of freedom and democracy, Serbs sacrificed more than any other people on behalf of Western ideals. Serbs are lovers of America. America should now figure out how to re-connect with our jilted lover.
