Alternative Insight

The Nationalist Struggles
An Instrument of American Foreign Policy

America's participation in the Balkan wars portends an even more active attention to nationalist struggles as an arm of American foreign policy.

The Balkans
The separatist movements in the Balkans occurred immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union. The lack of a cold war conflict modified the characteristics of these national struggles and the United States quickly realized that a countervailing power no longer existed. It had the power to determine the conflicts. After Bosnia forced its separation from Yugoslavia and became recognized by Germany, the United States assumed a more active role in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

American induced sanctions destroyed the Serbian economy. A bleeding Serbia limped to Dayton, Ohio in November 1995, where the U.S. negotiatiated the final terms of the legal separation of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Yugoslavia Federation. The terms, which were not favored by the Bosnian Muslims, included the establishment of two autonomous republics, a Bosnian-Croat federation and a separate Serb republic. Afterwards, the United States led NATO into a bombing campaign of Yugoslavia that enabled victory for the Kosovo Liberation army and brought the end of Yugoslavian domination of Kosovo.

American officials offered its intention to prevent "ethnic cleansing" and its support for legitimate nationalist aspirations as the principal reasons for direct interference in the Balkan wars. These noble reasons are inconsistent with U.S. policy in other regions of the world. The U.S. has tacitly supported Israel's subjugation of Palestinian national aspirations. In Kashmir, which is almost entirely Moslem and desires to separate from Hindu India, the United States has not supported the Kashmiri national aspirations.

Despite American protests, U.S. interference did not prevent ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Massive movements of populations occurred, and each region has been partially cleansed of minority populations. It is still being debated if Yugoslavia had intentions of clearing Albanians from Kosovo. It's not being debated that Albanians have almost cleared Serbs from Kosovo. Slovenia, Croatia and Kosovo have achieved their nationalist aspirations at the expense of partial destruction of Serbian communities in their regions. Bosnia, which had been at the center of the Balkan wars and received the most attention in the conflicts, did not achieve its goals of a fully integrated country. Bosnia-Herzegovina consists of a Serbian republic and a weak and quarreling Bosnian-Croatian federation. The political integration has been rocky, with the Croats, at times, threatening to leave the federation. Presently the federation seems more solid . However, the possibility of withdrawal of the UN police force, due to U.S. Security Council veto of the treaty on the International criminal Court, alarms the federation government. "All the progress made so far will be endangered," said Amer Kapetanovic, the spokesman for the Bosnian Foreign Ministry. "The U.S. needs to help us to finally stand on our own two feet."- (Alexander S. Dragicevic, Associated Press Writer, July 1, 2002)

So, what did the United States achieve for itself by contributing to the Yugoslavia implosion? The U.S. gained significant benefits:

  • A united Yugoslavia had potential of being a major nation which could behave independently from America. A divided Yugoslavia is malleable and powerless.
  • A strategic Russian ally in Eastern Europe became powerless.
  • The U.S. could show the Moslem nations that it treated all nationalities equally and fairly.
  • The American military had an opportunity to test new weapons and logistics.
  • The U.S. demonstrated to the world that it had become the lone superpower and alliance with the U.S. was beneficial.

In the Balkan wars, the U.S. military concluded that it could wage a successful war without involving ground troops and without receiving casualties. This knowledge guided the U.S. military in its next engagement. In Afghanistan it would apply a similar military philosophy and a contrary philosophy towards national aspirations.

Afghanistan
The United States has waged a successful war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al-Queda. That war still lingers and the United States finds itself firmly situated in Afghanistan--and not without reasons.The location of Afghanistan has strategic assets for the U.S. It has a narrow border with China, a large border with Iran and borders with the previous Soviet Union. Afghanistan can serve as a listening post to electronic conversations and for detecting missile launches in the bordering nations. It can also provide logistic support for covert operations against any of the bordering countries. In event of war in that region, the U.S. will have bases for military action. To assure its presence in Afghanistan is not challenged, the United States is forced to control the formation of a unified national government that remains obedient to American dictates. Unlike its support of separatist movements in Yugoslavia, the United States must ensure that local separation movements are smothered in Afghanistan.

U.S. actions towards China flips 180 degrees from its strategy of containing local nationalist movements in Afghanistan.

China
Is China a threat to American dominance and world hegemony? Definitely! As China continues its rise to an economic powerhouse that absorbs foreign investment, out-produces the present industrial nations and regulates world exports, the economic strength of America shrinks, and shrinks. The U.S. cannot apply a military option against a China that is equipped with nuclear weapons. It cannot apply economic warfare against a country that is economically independent. What can America devise to prevent China from diminishing U.S. hegemony in the world? One strategy is similar to that used in Yugoslavia-- encourage nationalist aspirations, keep China occupied in fighting civil disturbances and promote the breakup of China.

The United States claims valid and unselfish reasons for suppporting independence and pro-democracy movements in China. With U.S. support, Taiwan has maintained its independence. Without U.S. support, Hong Kong, that is legally part of China, has also retained an independent path. And China claims it will grant the same status to Taiwan. Vocal support for Tibetan exiles and pro-democracy dissidents have continued for decades and has had no effect on those movements. Why does the U.S. persist in efforts that have shown no results? The support for Taiwan's independence from China, for Tibetan self-expression and for pro-democracy dissidents fit into the "separate them" strategy in action.

One evidence of the "separate them" strategy: China has labeled rebels in the Moslem Xinjiang Uygur province as terrorists and requested the United States to include these "terrorists" in the war on terrorism. The U.S. has classified the insurgents, who have bombed Chinese installations and killed many innocents, as legitimate fighters for rights and freedoms. The U.S. has not actively supported the efforts of the rebels but it has not actively supported any efforts to contain them.

China has dissident groups eager to gain control and shape their country. It has nationalist groups whose leaders are eager to lead their peoples to an independence governed by them. U.S. support for nationalist aspirations and for dissident actions are a strategy for containment of a growing China. And Korea must be considered in those plans.

Korea
The U.S. has been ambivalent concerning the unification of Korea, pretending to favor it while never providing the support that would enable the unification. Does Korean unification benefit U.S. interests?

Presently, South Korea depends on the U.S.military to prevent hostilities between the Koreas and on U.S. economic support to make certain the Korean economy remains solvent. By these means, the U.S.exercises some control of Korean policies. A united Korea becomes a more powerful and independent Korea. The directions of an independent Korea are an unknown. Most likely, that Korea would become closer to its powerful Chinese neighbor and more distant from its earlier benefactor. American strategy towards Korea--prevent national aspirations from uniting the two Koreas. This view is gaining attention:

According to a February Munhwa Ilbo survey, 73 percent of Koreans believe that President Bush's "axis of evil" remarks were detrimental to the already slim chances for unification, let alone dialogue, between the North and South--policies supported by 69 percent of the South Korean populace...-Toby Dalton, visiting research fellow at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Seoul, Korea. Carnegie Endowment for peace publication, March 25, '02.

If Korea leaves the American orbit and China challenges American hegemony, the U.S. will focus more attention on India.

India
India is composed of a multitude of ethnic minorities, some of which, e.g., Sikhs, Tamils, Muslims, are already waging conflicts for increased autonomy or total separation from the mother state. India rightly fears a complete disintegration of its national identity. Its hold on Kashmir is governed by the fear that if Kashmir goes, so go many of the other minorities. How do India's problems with national aspirations influence U.S. policies?

India has become a pivotal nation in the U.S. growing conflicts with China and the Arab world. The U.S. needs a strong India as a strong ally in these conflicts. This means supporting India in its suppression of nationalist movements and maintaining a united India.

It's natural that the United States will want to maintain its present economic and military dominance. In its response to the nationalist struggles in Yugoslavia, the United States disclosed the strategy for preserving its world hegemony--manipulate nationalist movements for America's advantage.

alternativeinsight
july 1, 2002

 HOME PAGE     MAIN PAGE
 

alternativeinsight@earthlink.net