DefenceTalk.com
Nov 13 2004
Defence & Strategic
The Division of the Balkans and the Black Sea Region
Willard Payne
Nov 12, 2004, 15:45 |
An Invitation to Invasion
With the decision, led by the Organization of Security and
Cooperation in Europe, headquartered in Vienna, to recognize the
division of Yugoslavia and the newly independent states and the
creation of Moldova with the break-up of the Soviet Union, all done
in the name of the “New World Order”, it set in motion a chain
reaction which will lead to further instability and conflict beyond
what the world has seen already. One of the few dissenting voices was
that of the then US Secretary of State James Baker, who stated
publicly in 1991, that he refused to recognize the independence of
Slovenia, “under any circumstances”. There was also the Belgian who
was Secretary- General of NATO in 1990 I believe his name was Willy
Claes, who mentioned that the threat to the West and to international
security was Islam. Within a year he was removed by a scandal never
to be mentioned again, as if he never existed. I always suspected it
was arranged by those in the OSCE who wanted the staged crisis in the
Balkans as a showcase for the New World Order which I assume they
thought could be solved by a diplomatic show, something Vienna loves
to orchestrate. And there was a British expert who observed, with the
willful division of Czechoslovakia, that Eastern and Central Europe
are in danger of descending into tribalism. There is no greater abyss
to march into.
There was another interested party in these proceedings, Islam. In
the first half of the 1990’s, the initial phase of the Balkan front,
during one of the winters when there was a pause in the fighting due
to the weather, an article mentioned Serbia having the best weapon
contacts in the region. This is the factor Vienna failed to take into
consideration, being so caught up in the illusion of their grand
design. The impact of weapon dealers and outside influences and in
this instance representing a region which also has long festering
disputes with the West and would immediately realize the convenience
of using the Balkans and Black Sea region to keep the West busy which
in turn would reduce the West’s military presence in the
Mediterranean not to mention Central Asia, the main front. An article
stated Serbia was receiving weapon support from Libya. Iran also
evinced an interest by establishing formal relations with Croatia in
1992 and announcing since then that Croatia was their entry into
Central Europe. Some in the West realized the hidden meaning. Germany
has since sent to Poland Leopard tanks and the US helped Poland to
upgrade her air force. Iran has also established a very busy embassy
in downtown Sarajevo, which puts them in an extremely strategic
position to monitor and assist the Islamic fighters, who have arrived
there to do more than just help Bosnia and to assist in coordinating
the Islamic war effort with nationalistic forces. A few months ago
Iran’s, extremely eager Defense Minister Adm. Ali Shamkani paid a
call on Warsaw most likely to look over Poland’s new equipment. His
visit is an indication Iran views everything from Macedonia to
Moldova and beyond as up for grabs and that a lot of groups,
nationalists, are readily available, from any religious ritual, to
express their hatred not only of Vienna but also those who support
Vienna. This may partly explain Iran and Saudi Arabia’s reason for
using Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in their current threats
against Rome.
Unfortunately Europe has a long Imperial history of promoting wars in
the Balkans to use as a military playground, a display of
international prominence. This has kept the entire region in a cross
fire of conflicting spheres of influence and now is showing signs of
alienating the people the OSCE attempted to impress and manipulate.
When NATO decided to use Pres. Slobodan Milosevic once again, as they
did in 1994, when Milosevic’s support of the Bosnian Serbs helped
justify the NATO bombing campaign that year, the year I believe World
War III began, NATO marched further into the abyss with the bombing
of Serbia/Kosovo in 1999. NATO simply ignored the UN which gave a
further indication this was not the same organization that was
established 50 years previously to convince nations in and around the
north Atlantic to no longer go to war with each other, as Europe had
been doing for the 1,000 years since the death of Charlemagne.
The bombing alienated Greece, which for centuries had close relations
with Serbia since the two follow the same Orthodox ritual. There is
also regional identity, which may explain why a year or two later,
Greece and Turkey conducted a joint peace mission to the Middle East.
It was now Southeastern Europe as opposed to the rest of Europe
welcoming the invitation from Islam under Persian direction.
It was either late in 2000 or early 2001when the news mention Turkey
and Iran were comparing intelligence information but the announcement
did not say about where. During February a six-month ethnic Albanian
rebellion began and nearly defeated the Macedonian government. It was
admitted in the news the Macedonian military was little more than
well-armed policemen who were no stranger to corrupt privileges. The
head of state was actually on the phone, in a panic, to the head of
the European Union. During the fighting, the former British
negotiator Lord David Owen stated publicly NATO should leave the
region. What was so significant about his statement is that he used
to be one of Britain’s lead negotiators in the early 1990’s during
the first part of the Balkan crisis and now he seemed to realize the
trap NATO and the West had fallen into. The US dispatched its new
National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the Ukraine on a
non-agenda crisis trip because the Ukraine was eager to arm Skopje
with virtually anything, which could have widened the conflict.
Articles admitted Ukraine was actually controlled by a weapons mafia.
Though mountainous and poor, with only two million people and an
average monthly salary of $155.00 per person, Macedonia sits astride
a strategic crossroads on the Balkans peninsula encompassed by
neighbors on all sides who ruled it in the past or coveted its
territory. Throughout its history it was occupied by Greeks, Romans,
Bulgarians, Byzantines, Serbs and Islamic Ottoman Turks, who ruled
for 500 years, but never eradicated Christianity. Its disintegration
along the ethnic fault lines, that are only to clear on the map
today, could trigger a new carve-up of the Balkans, propelling the
one-third Albanian majority towards union with Albania to the west or
Kosovo to the north.
The Macedonia majority, a family of southern Slavs, would be tempted
to seek shelter for their abbreviated state in the protection of
Serbia or Bulgaria, larger societies whose language and religion they
share. As “domino” theory predicts, the ethnic Albanian majority of
Kosovo and reluctant Serbs in Bosnia would see any failure to knit
together a multi-ethnic society in Macedonia as justification to
seize their own destinies back from the hands of Western powers.
Such a chain reaction, the European fears, would mean a reversion to
the Balkan cauldron of the early 20th century, an unstable
nationalist jigsaw of disputed borders and latent conflict, a recipe
for seething anarchy requiring permanent supervision. Preserving
territorial integrity has been the foundation of Western foreign
policy since Yugoslavia began its violent breakup in 1991, but a
policy often in retreat. This is why Iran and Turkey decided to help
the West find reasons to remain committed because it is a drain on
military resources.
When Macedonia declared independence its choice of name so angered
EU-member Greece, whose northern province carries the same ancient
label, European recognition, was held up for three years. A Greek
blockade of petroleum and other supplies showed how easy it was to
bring the dependent, landlocked country to its knees. Recent violence
and demonstrations have shown that the issue of stability is far from
settled and no one stands to benefit more from further instability
than Iran and the Jihad.
Moldova, formed in 1992, with the collapse of the Soviet Union into
15 nations, Moldova was part of the second group of Soviet successor
states. It comprised the nine that formed part of non-NATO Europe.
This also included four Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),
Armenia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Do not be ashamed to be
confused, they are in a constant state of flux and they are by no
means by themselves though I suspect that is what they preferred.
Individual international recognition controlling what was left of the
state economy and a thriving undeclared underground black economy.
This is basically what virtually every nation that has surfaced after
the Soviet Union became and in Moldova’s case history Russia had to
establish regional peacekeeping forces, the 14th Army under Lt. Gen.
Alexandre Lebed to limit the fighting between Moldova and the
breakaway trans-Dnestr region, mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians
and Ukrainians. Russia provided arms and troops to the insurgents,
helping them to defeat the Moldovan army in several battles, notably
that for Bendery in June 1992. A cease-fire was signed the following
month by Pres. Boris Yeltsin of Russia and Moldova’s Pres. Mircea
Snegur.
For the next 12 years international efforts to resolve the crisis
have failed with the current controversy revolving around a language
and now energy dispute with the usual cycle of regional interest.
What has enlarged the conflict is the greater war against terror in
other words Islam. The US and other nations adjacent to Moldova have
provided military facilities for operations in the Middle East so
stability is obviously of paramount importance while at the same time
Iran has been signing substantial economic agreements, memorandums of
understanding, with every nation in the Black Sea region. The
economic dimension of the Jihad will be felt very heavily here. If
Iran has enough military successes in the region the entire economic
dialogue will be dictated by Tehran.
International initiatives have encountered withering criticism from a
range of international and local analysts and Moldovan
nongovernmental organizations fearful that the OSCE plan would turn
Moldova into a satellite of Russia. Prospects for a breakthrough
appear slim. The Transnistrian authorities are reluctant to lift
their authoritarian controls or abandon lucrative smuggling
activities that have left Transnistria isolated but for its lifeline
to Russia and its leaders banned from traveling to Western countries.
Meanwhile, a significant exodus of adult Moldovans is taking place
owing to endemic corruption at the elite level and the contraction of
the economy. The country’s population is a scant 39.5% of the size it
was in 1990. Many people swapped professional jobs at home for menial
ones in Western Europe in order to earn enough to support their
families.
With the corruption at the top and the serious regional rivalry
around them the chances for these countries surviving from Macedonia
to Moldova, under their current boundaries, or any other, is
virtually non-existent. Moscow probably concluded a long time ago
that peaceful solutions to the arrogant, self-contained nationalities
exist only in a dream world. The nightmarish consequences, which will
become more apparent before the end of the year, will result in the
re-establishment of the Russian hegemony whose hard currency of
financing comes from, as always the West, principally Berlin. The
Berlin-Moscow spectrum and the serious industrial concern behind it,
realizes this crescent of crisis can only be solved militarily.
During the war reliable local leaders will assert themselves and if
they have enough local military support will survive to represent
their provinces in the post-World War III climate.
Of course the post-war climate will not be one of universal peace but
one of militaristic stability. The Jihad would have run its course. I
cannot see more than two years of all out fighting starting with this
one. When Tehran realizes it cannot defeat Moscow they will make a
deal which will end at least most of the fighting. They will probably
call it a new partnership with Moscow being the most prominent.
About the author: Willard Payne is a consultant and analyst in
international affairs, specializing in extreme situations. He is a
member of US Naval Institute and President’s Circle of Chicago
Council on Foreign Relations. Willard holds a degree in history from
Western Illinois University and currently he is running Night Watch
Information Service, a broad range news-analysis service.
URL of this article:
–Boundary_(ID_de1synzvgIZ0uPBSzbJAvA)–