Connect with us

Europe

Theresa May Britain’s new premier

Published

on

Today Conservative leader Theresa May becomes the second woman politician in British history tasked with leading Britain into talks to leave the EU after her only rival in the race to succeed Prime Minister David Cameron pulled out unexpectedly. Margaret Thatcher had led her country for three terms, from 1979 to 1990. The Conservative Party leadership race of Andrea Leadsom faced criticism for suggesting Theresa was more qualified to be prime minister because she had children. Maybe she is the candidate of the Queen as David Cameron stepped down after six years over Brexit.

Al Jazeera’s report from London said May was the choice of many in the ruling party. “Of the five people that contested the Conservative Party leadership, many people regarded Theresa May as perhaps the more establishment figure. She has been the home secretary, the interior minister, for the past six years and because of that she has had intimate knowledge of the workings of the government and has had to liaise very closely with her European counterparts on matters of security and immigration. May has much less of a track record in relation to the economics of European Union, and certainly the issue of Britain divorcing itself from the EU is going to be an issue that she is going to have to come to speed with very quickly.

Born in Eastbourne, Sussex, May studied geography at St Hugh’s College, Oxford. From 1977 to 1983, May worked at the Bank of England and from 1985 to 1997 at the Association for Payment Clearing Services, also serving as a councilor for the London Borough of Merton’s Durnsford Ward. After unsuccessful attempts to get elected to the House of Commons in 1992 and 1994, she was elected MP for Maidenhead in the 1997 general election. She went on to be appointed Chairman of the Conservative Party and be sworn of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council in 2002.

Ironically, May was a “Remainer” ahead of the June 23 referendum on EU membership, supporting Britain staying inside the EU. She will now be in charge of Brexit, tasked with uniting a fractured ruling Conservative Party, as well as a divided nation, and steering Britain in fresh waters outside of a declining European Union that has become a byword for economic turmoil. This is a moment for strong, bold leadership from a new prime minister with a reputation for toughness and resolve.

Theresa Mary May (née Brasier; born 1 October 1956), , a 59-year-old clergyman’s daughter and British politician who has been the Home Secretary since 2010, faces major challenges when she takes the reins at 10 Downing Street of London. The new PM will oversee Britain’s exit from the European Union, a two-year process which begins as soon as the new government triggers Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. As Prime Minister, Theresa May will lead a Britain that is once again a truly sovereign nation, free to shape its own destiny and chart a new path as a global force.

Freed of the shackles of the EU, Britain is in a strong position to project power and influence on the world stage, alongside the USA. . As a Member of Parliament for nearly 20 years, May brings a great deal of political experience in a wide range of positions to her new position. She will head the world’s fifth largest economy, with one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and a permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council.

For the first time in over 40 years, Britain will be free to negotiate its own free trade deals. Building a free trade area with the United States will be a top priority.

The US-UK Special Relationship will likely be strengthened rather than weakened by Brexit, and offers far greater opportunities for collaboration between London and Washington.

She would follow the example of the Iron Lady before her, who led her nation with great courage, conviction and fortitude, based upon robust conservative principles, and a willingness to always listen to the beating heart of the British people.

“I am honored and humbled to have been chosen by the Conservative Party to become its leader and, therefore, prime minister,” said May in London after she was formally confirmed as the winner of the Conservative leadership contest on Monday afternoon. “During this campaign, my case has been based on three things. First, the need for strong, proven leadership to steer us through what will be difficult and uncertain economic and political times; the need to negotiate the best deal for Britain in leaving the EU; and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world.”

May has portrayed herself as the leader who can unite the country following a bitterly divisive campaign, and a tough negotiator who can stand up to Brussels in what promise to be tortuous talks over Britain’s exit from the European Union. Leadsom’s withdrawal means all the top Brexit campaigners – Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Leadsom and outgoing UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage – have now stepped back from leadership roles. “Brexiteers threw rocks through the window, now they’re all running away from the house,” author Salman Rushdie said on Twitter.

Meanwhile, David Cameron has chaired his final cabinet meeting, with some “wonderful tributes” paid to the outgoing PM. Theresa May is preparing to take over from Cameron, who will hand in his resignation to the Queen on Wednesday. Mrs. May had been expecting a nine-week race for the Tory leadership, but rival Andrea Leadsom withdrew on Monday. “After that I expect to go to Buckingham Palace and offer my resignation,” he told reporters outside his office in Downing Street. “So we will have a new prime minister in that building behind me by Wednesday evening.” Sitting around the table at his final cabinet meeting were ministers who had taken opposing sides in the referendum. But this was a time for poignant tributes and thanks. And as the team of cabinet ministers later filed out of Number 10, wondering if they would be back and in what job, one member stayed behind – Theresa May, for half an hour.

Mrs. May, who has pledged to make Brexit a success, will appoint her own ministerial team when she takes office. She says she is “honored and humbled” to be taking over as Conservative Party leader Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said there were some “wonderful tributes” to Cameron led by Mrs. May and Chancellor George Osborne. “There was a feeling across the cabinet of great pride at what David Cameron has achieved over the last six years, sadness that it has ended, in a way, perhaps much quicker than people thought, “But also huge gratitude to him for what’s he achieved for the country and the way he’s changed the Conservative Party,” he said.

Britain has faced the worst political turmoil in generations following June 23’s shock vote to leave the European Union, which prompted Cameron to step down. His party has endured a bitter leadership race, while the leader of the main opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is also facing a challenge to his job.

While May supported Britain staying in the EU, she cut a low profile during the referendum and has insisted she will honour the vote. “Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it,” May said on Monday. “We need to unite our country … we need a strong new positive vision for the future of our country, a vision of a country that works not for the privileged few, but that works for every one of us because we’re going to give people more control over their lives. And that’s how, together, we will build a better Britain.”

May wants to begin formal talks to leave the EU by the end of the year at the earliest, despite pressure from Brussels to speed up. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister who heads the Eurogroup of his 19 eurozone counterparts, restated calls for the transfer of power to take place as soon as possible.

The pound, which hit a 31-year low in the wake of the Brexit vote, briefly rose after Leadsom, a pro-Brexit figure with no senior ministerial experience, withdrew from contention to be prime minister. As senior MP Angela Eagle formally launched her leadership challenge against Corbyn, Labour suggested a general election would need to be held soon after May takes office. “It is crucial, given the instability caused by the Brexit vote, that the country has a democratically elected prime minister,” said election coordinator Jon Trickett. “I am now putting the whole of the party on a general election footing.”

Quietly, calmly, power is passing from one prime minister to the next. At the back of Downing Street, cardboard boxes were carried to a bright blue removal van, the Cameron family’s possessions heading for a new home. There hasn’t been much time to pack. Theresa May’s accelerated ascent to the premiership has hastened David Cameron’s departure – his hopes of leading a five-year majority conservative government ended after one. When Mrs. May emerged into the sunshine, she walked one way, hesitated, then went the other – looking for her car. At the steps of Number 10 she gave an awkward wave for the cameras – a ritual she will have many chances to practice. As she left to plan her new cabinet, David Cameron made his last official visit as prime minister to a free school in West London. A moment to reflect on what he had achieved and what might have been!

Mrs. May is to appoint a new ministerial team when she takes over the reins today. The swift transition comes after the expected nine-week leadership campaign was truncated to just a couple of days by leading Brexit campaigner Andrea Leadsom’s withdrawal from the contest. Mrs. Leadsom’s surprise announcement meant Mrs. May, who had been the front runner, was the only remaining candidate in the race.

After being formally declared the winner of the contest, Mrs. May praised Cameron for his stewardship of the party and the country and paid tribute to Mrs. Leadsom for her “dignity” in withdrawing her leadership bid. But senior Labour MP Jon Trickett has joined the Lib Dems and Green Party in calling for a snap general election. Trickett, Labour’s general election coordinator and an ally of leader Jeremy Corbyn, said it was “crucial” to have a “democratically elected prime minister” and said he was putting the party on “general election footing”. Mrs May has rejected such demands.

The EU negotiation, controlling immigration and managing the economy were “huge issues” that would challenge Mrs. May’s desire for a “steady as she goes” approach. Former chancellor Ken Clarke – who supported Mrs. May in the final ballot – said the new leader and prime minister needed to “balance the party” in her cabinet appointments. “She’s got a real problem of bringing the warring wings of the party together. She’ll combine her own strong personal opinions about who she wants to work with, with a desire to bring the party together,” he said. But he cautioned that the party’s small parliamentary majority would not make the task “easy”. “To actually get the real head-bangers together on both sides and to see four years of government through will require some political skill… but she’s pragmatic, she’ll want to get on and do things,” he said.

Mrs. May said she had based her leadership bid on the need for “strong, proven leadership”, the ability to unite both party and country and a “positive vision” for Britain’s future. And in a message perhaps designed to reassure Brexit-supporting colleagues, Mrs. May, a Remain campaigner, said: “Brexit means Brexit – and we’re going to make a success of it.”

Cameron, who has been prime minister since 2010, said Mrs. May would have his “full support”, describing her as “strong”, “competent” and “more than able to provide the leadership” the country needs.

David Cameron says he will take Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday and then head to Buckingham Palace and officially tender his resignation to the Queen and recommend she sends for Theresa May as his replacement. Mrs. May will then go to Buckingham Palace to see the Queen and receive her invitation to form a government. Theresa May should then be in place as UK prime minister by Wednesday evening – it is not yet clear when the Cameron family will move out of No 10.

Several European media outlets say that with Theresa May’s arrival in Downing Street, British politics may finally be about to enter a calmer period after the turmoil triggered by Brexit referendum. France’s Le Figaro declares that “Theresa May will be the prime minister of Brexit. Deeply divided by the referendum on Europe, the Conservative Party reunites – at least it seems so – behind her and this objective, in a life-saving reflex.” A commentary in the left-wing French paper L’Humanite says Tory heads have been “spinning” ever since the victory of the Brexit camp, but the party can now pick itself up and carry on. The Brussels correspondent Deutsche Welle believes that while Mrs May inherits an unenviable legacy from her predecessor, she is an experienced enough politician to be able to ride out the storm. Barbara Wesel says: “At least Britain and the rest of Europe now get a professional politician, not a fanatic. That is in itself good reason for being a little grateful.” Frankfurter Zeitung’s politics editor, Peter Sturm, takes a similar line, saying the choice of Theresa May provides some clarity for Britain and the European Union. He also cautiously welcomes the fact that she has not so far adopted any “extreme positions”. However, Spiegel Online declares that Mrs. May “is considered to be cool but also to thrive on conflict. She may need this, as Brussels will now lie on the pressure.”

Some European commentators make comparisons between Theresa May and other strong female leaders such as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Thomas Kielinger, writing in the German daily Die Welt, says Mrs May shares with both women an aversion to “small talk and media chatter”. The Italian daily Corriere della Sera describes Mrs. May as “a bit of Merkel, a bit of Thatcher” and notes that she “is reputed to be an uncompromising politician”. Riccardo Scarpa, writing for Italy’s Il Tempo, notes that with her declaration “Brexit is Brexit”, Theresa May set out her stall “with the enthusiasm and determination of a woman who has already been dubbed the new Thatcher”. A commentator calls her the Second ‘Iron Lady’- the choice of the London queen.

Europe

The Leaders of the Western World Meet

Published

on

The annual meeting of the G7 comprising the largest western economies plus Japan is being hosted this year by the United Kingdom.  Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister has also invited Australia, South Korea, South Africa and India.  There has been talk of including Russia again but Britain threatened a veto.  Russia, which had been a member from 1997, was suspended in 2014 following the Crimea annexation.  

Cornwall in the extreme southwest of England has a rugged beauty enjoyed by tourists, and is a contrast to the green undulating softness of its neighbor Devon.  St. Ives is on Cornwall’s sheltered northern coast and it is the venue for the G7 meeting (August 11-13) this year.  It offers beautiful beaches and ice-cold seas.

France, Germany. Italy, UK, US, Japan and Canada.  What do the rich talk about?  Items on the agenda this year including pandemics (fear thereof) and in particular zoonotic diseases where infection spreads from non-human animals to humans.  Johnson has proposed a network of research labs to deal with the problem.  As a worldwide network it will include the design of a global early-warning system and will also establish protocols to deal with future health emergencies.

The important topic of climate change is of particular interest to Boris Johnson because Britain is hosting COP26  in Glasgow later this year in November.  Coal, one of the worst pollutants, has to be phased out and poorer countries will need help to step up and tackle not just the use of cheap coal but climate change and pollution in general.  The G7 countries’ GDP taken together comprises about half of total world output, and climate change has the potential of becoming an existential problem for all on earth.  And help from them to poorer countries is essential for these to be able to increase climate action efforts.

The G7 members are also concerned about large multinationals taking advantage of differing tax laws in the member countries.  Thus the proposal for a uniform 15 percent minimum tax.  There is some dispute as to whether the rate is too low.

America is back according to Joe Biden signalling a shift away from Donald Trump’s unilateralism.  But America is also not the sole driver of the world economy:  China is a real competitor and the European Union in toto is larger.  In a multilateral world, Trump charging ahead on his own made the US risible.  He also got nowhere as the world’s powers one by one distanced themselves.

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is also endorsing close coordination in economic policies plus continued support as the world struggles to recover after the corona epidemic.  India for example, has over 27 million confirmed cases, the largest number in Asia.  A dying first wave shattered hopes when a second much larger one hit — its devastation worsened by a shortage of hospital beds, oxygen cylinders and other medicines in the severely hit regions.  On April 30, 2021, India became the first country to report over 400,000 new cases in a single 24 hour period.

It is an interdependent world where atavistic self-interest is no longer a solution to its problems.

Continue Reading

Europe

Revisiting the Bosnian War

Published

on

Genocide is not an alien concept to the world nowadays. However, while the reality (and the culprit) is not hard to profile today, history is ridden with massacres that were draped and concealed from the world beyond. Genocides that rivaled the great warfares and were so gruesome that the ring of brutality still pulsates in the historical narrative of humanity. We journey back to one such genocide that was named the most brutish mass slaughter after World War II. We revisit the Bosnian War (1992-95) which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 100,000 innocent Bosnian citizens and displaced millions. The savage nature of the war was such that the war crimes committed constituted a whole new definition to how we describe genocide.

The historical backdrop helps us gauge the complex relations and motivations which resulted in such chaotic warfare to follow suit. Post World War II, the then People’s Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina joined the then Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. Bosnia-Herzegovina became one of the constituent republics of Yugoslavia in 1946 along with other Balkan states including Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. As communism pervaded all over Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina began losing its religion-cultural identity. Since Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly comprised of a Muslim population, later known as the Bosniaks, the spread of socialism resulted in the abolition of many Muslim institutions and traditions. And while the transition to the reformed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1963 did ease the ethnic pressure, the underlying radical ideology and sentiments never fully subsided.

The Bosniaks started to emerge as the majority demographic of Bosnia and by 1971, the Bosniaks constituted as the single largest component of the entire Bosnia-Herzegovina population. However, the trend of emigration picked up later in the decades; the Serbs and the Croats adding up to their tally throughout most of the 70s and mid-80s. The Bosnian population was characterized as a tripartite society, that is, comprised of three core ethnicities: Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Till  1991, the ethnic majority of the Bosniaks was heavily diluted down to just 44% while the Serbian emigrants concentrated the Serbian influence; making up 31% of the total Bosnian population.

While on one side of the coin, Bosnia-Herzegovina was being flooded with Serbs inching a way to gain dominance, the Yugoslavian economy was consistently perishing on the other side. While the signs of instability were apparent in the early 80s, the decade was not enough for the economy to revive. In the late 80s, therefore, political dissatisfaction started to take over and multiple nationalist parties began setting camps. The sentiments diffused throughout the expanse of Yugoslavia and nationalists sensed an imminent partition. Bosnia-Herzegovina, like Croatia, followed through with an election in 1990 which resulted in an expected tripartite poll roughly similar to the demographic of Bosnia. The representatives resorted to form a coalition government comprising of Bosniak-Serb-Craot regime sharing turns at the premiership. While the ethnic majority Bosniaks enjoyed the first go at the office, the tensions soon erupted around Bosnia-Herzegovina as Serbs turned increasingly hostile.

The lava erupted in 1991 as the coalition government of Bosnia withered and the Serbian Democratic Party established its separate assembly in Bosnia known as ‘Serbian National Assembly’.  The move was in line with a growing sentiment of independence that was paving the dismantling of Yugoslavia. The Serbian Democratic Party long envisioned a dominant Serbian state in the Balkans and was not ready to participate in a rotational government when fighting was erupting in the neighboring states. When Croatia started witnessing violence and the rise of rebels in 1992, the separatist vision of the Serbs was further nourished as the Serbian Democratic Party, under the leadership of Serb Leader Radovan Karadžić, established an autonomous government in the Serb Majority areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The vision and the actions remained docile until the ring of independence was echoed throughout the region. When the European Commission (EC), now known as the European Union (EU), and the United States recognized the independence of both Croatia and Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina found itself in a precarious position. While a safe bet would have been to undergo talks and diplomatic routes to engage the Serbian Democratic Party, the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović failed to realize the early warnings of an uprising. Instead of forging negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosniak President resorted to mirror Croatia by organizing a referendum of independence bolstered by both the EC and the US. Even as the referendum was blocked in the Serb autonomous regions of Bosnia, Izetbegović chose to pass through and announced the results. As soon as the Bosnian Independence from Yugoslavia was announced and recognized, fighting erupted throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Bosnian Serbs feared that their long-envisioned plan of establishing the ‘Great Serbia’ in the Balkans was interred which resulted in chaos overtaking most of Bosnia. The blame of the decision, however, was placed largely on the Bosniak president and, by extension, the entire ethnic majority of the Bosniaks. The Bosnian Serbs started to launch attacks in the east of Bosnia; majorly targeting the Bosniak-dominated towns like Foča, Višegrad, and Zvornik. Soon the Bosnian Serb forces were joined by the local paramilitary rebels as well as the Yugoslavian army as the attacks ravaged the towns with large Bosniak populations; swathing the land in the process. The towns were pillaged and pressed into control whilst the local Bosniaks and their Croat counterparts were either displaced, incarcerated, or massacred.

While the frail Bosnian government managed to join hands with the Croatian forces across the border, the resulting offense was not nearly enough as the combination of Serb forces, rebel groups, and the Yugoslavian army took control of almost two-thirds of the Bosnian territory. The Karadžić regime refused to hand over the captured land in the rounds of negotiations. And while the war stagnated, the Bosniak locals left behind in small pockets of war-ravaged areas faced the brunt in the name of revenge and ethnic cleansing.

As Bosniaks and Croats formed a joint federation as the last resort, the Serbian Democratic Party established the Republic Srpska in the captured East, and the military units were given under the command of the Bosnian-Serb General, Ratko Mladic. The notorious general, known as the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’, committed horrifying war crimes including slaughtering the Bosniak locals captured in violence, raping the Bosniak women, and violating the minors in the name of ethnic cleansing exercises. While the United Nations refused to intervene in the war, the plea of the helpless Bosniaks forced the UN to at least deliver humanitarian aid to the oppressed. The most gruesome of all incidents were marked in July 1995, when an UN-declared safe zone, known as Srebrenica, was penetrated by the forces led by Mladic whilst some innocent Bosniaks took refuge. The forces brutally slaughtered the men while raped the women and children. An estimated 7000-8000 Bosniak men were slaughtered in the most grotesque campaign of ethnic cleansing intended to wipe off any trace of Bosniaks from the Serb-controlled territory.

In the aftermath of the barbaric war crimes, NATO undertook airstrikes to target the Bosnian-Serb targets while the Bosniak-Croat offense was launched from the ground. In late 1995, the Bosnian-Serb forces conceded defeat and accepted US-brokered talks. The accords, also known as the ‘Dayton Accords’, resulted in a conclusion to the Bosnian War as international forces were established in the region to enforce compliance. The newly negotiated federalized Bosnia and Herzegovina constituted 51% of the Croat-Bosniak Federation and 49% of the Serb Republic.

The accord, however, was not the end of the unfortunate tale as the trials and international action were soon followed to investigate the crimes against humanity committed during the three-year warfare. While many Serb leaders either died in imprisonment or committed suicide, the malefactor of the Srebrenica Massacre, Ratko Mladic, went into hiding in 2001. However, Mladic was arrested after a decade in 2011 by the Serbian authorities and was tried in the UN-established International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). The investigation revisited the malicious actions of the former general and in 2017, the ICTY found Ratko Mladic guilty of genocide and war crimes and sentenced him to life in prison. While Mladic appealed for acquittal on the inane grounds of innocence since not he but his subordinates committed the crimes, the UN court recently upheld the decision in finality; closing doors on any further appeals. After 26-years, the world saw despair in the eyes of the 78-year-old Mladic as he joined the fate of his bedfellows while the progeny of the victims gained some closure as the last Bosnian trail was cased on a note of justice.

Continue Reading

Europe

Greece And Yugoslavia: A Brief History Of Lasting Partitions

Published

on

Prior to the 1992-1995 Balkan war, the European Community delegated the British and Portugese diplomats, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, to design a suitable scheme for ethno-religious partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in February 1992 they launched the Lisbon Conference, with the aim of separating Bosnian ethno-religious communities and isolating them into distinct territories. This was the initiation of the process of partition, adopted in all subsequent plans to end the war in Bosnia. However, such a concept was stipulated by Carrington and Cutileiro as the only available when there was no war to end, indeed, no war in sight; and, curiously, it has remained the only concept that the European Community, and then the European Union, has ever tried to apply to Bosnia.

Contrary to the foundations of political theory, sovereignty of the Bosnian state was thus divided, and its parts were transferred to the three ethno-religious communities. The Carrington-Cutileiro maps were tailored to determine the territorial reach of each of these communities. What remained to be done afterwards was their actual physical separation, and that could only be performed by ethnic cleansing, that is, by war and genocide. For, ethno-religiously homogenous territories, as envisaged by Carrington and Cutileiro, could only be created by a mass slaughter and mass expulsion of those who did not fit the prescribed model of ethno-religious homogeneity. The European Community thus created a recipe for the war in Bosnia and for the perpetual post-war instability in the Balkans. Yet, ever since the war broke out, the European diplomatic circles have never ceased claiming that this ‘chaos’ was created by ‘the wild Balkan tribes’, who ‘had always slaughtered each other’. There was also an alternative narrative, disseminated from the same sources, that Russia promoted the programme of ‘Greater Serbia’, which eventually produced the bloodshed in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Facts on the ground, however, do not support either of these narratives. All these ‘tribes’ had peacefully lived for centuries under the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, until nationalist ideas were imported into Serbia and Greece at the beginning of the 19th century. On the other hand, Russia’s influence in the Balkans could never compete with the influence of the Anglo-French axis. The latter’s influence was originally implemented through the channels of Serbian and Greek nationalisms, constructed on the anti-Ottoman/anti-Islamic and anti-Habsburg/anti-Catholic grounds, in accordance with strategic interests of the two West European powers to dismantle the declining empires and transform them into a number of puppet nation-states. In these geopolitical shifts, nationalist ideologies in the Balkans utilized religious identities as the most efficient tool for mobilization of the targeted populations and creation of mutually exclusive and implacable national identities.

The pivotal among these nationalist ideologies has been the Serb one,  built on the grounds of Orthodox Christianity, with its permanent anti-Islamic and anti-Catholic agenda. The existence and expansion of Serbia was always explicitly backed by London and Paris – from a semi-autonomous principality within the Ottoman territory in the 1830s and the creation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882, through the 1912-13 Balkan wars and World War I, to its expansion into other South Slavic territories in the form of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), promoted at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919.

Eventually, the Serbian elites – supported by the Anglo-French axis, again – used the dissolution of the communist Yugoslavia as an opportunity for implementation of the 19th-century ‘Greater Serbia’ programme, that is, Serbia’s expansion in all the Yugoslav territories populated by the Orthodox Christians. However, this time ‘Greater Serbia’ was used as a catalyst in a bigger geopolicial reshuffling advocated by the UK and France – the simultaneous implementation of four ethnnically homogenous greater-state projects, including ‘Greater Serbia’ (transferring the Orthodox-populated parts of Bosnia, plus Montenegro and the northern part of Kosovo, to Serbia), ‘Greater Croatia’ (transferring the Catholic-populated parts of Bosnia to Croatia), ‘Greater Albania’ (transferring the Albanian-populated parts of Kosovo and Macedonia to Albania) and ‘Greater Bulgaria’ (transferring the Slavic parts of Macedonia to Bulgaria).

Since 1990s, ethno-religious nationalisms in the Balkans have served only  this geopolitical purpose – creation of ethno-religiously homogenous ‘greater’ states, including the disappearance of Bosnia and Macedonia, whose multi-religious and multi-ethnic structure has been labelled by the British foreign policy elites as “the last remnant of the Ottoman Empire“ that needs to be eliminated for good. The only major foreign power that has opposed these geopolitical redesigns is the US, which has advocated the policy of inviolability of the former Yugoslav republics’ borders. Yet, the US has never adopted a consistent policy of nation-building for Bosnia and Macedonia, which would be the only one that could efficiently counter the doctrine of ethno-religious homogeneity promoted by the UK and France and supported by most EU countries.   

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending