What dare not be said. What leaves me perplexed in the evolution in the countries of former Yugoslavia in relation to the European Union? Why did I recently express the impression that some of the countries have not yet understood the priority goals of the construction of a united Europe? The "official discourse" is too soothing, too indulgent and at the same time paternalistic; we dare not utter the truths stemming from checks on the ground, from certain journalistic investigations or declarations by people who know the situation through direct experience, as they have played or are playing an official role and now do not beat about the bush regarding what they know or have understood. Responsibilities are shared: the EU too has its own, as does NATO. A certain number of facts lead one to reflect upon the very direction of the policy being conducted by the West, based more on an abstract notion of what may be considered as "politically correct" than on the reality of the situations and the aspirations of the local populations. One has to have the necessary courage and lucidity to take note of two elements: a) a certain amount of "pacification" imposed by force and a certain amount of compulsory coexistence are not lasting solutions; on the contrary, the provoke or prepare new conflicts; b) some so-called political conduct in fact protects the interests of organised crime.
Lord Owen and the Balkans map. Let's begin with the first aspect. Having left his job as EU Special Envoy for peace in former Yugoslavia, Lord David Owen wrote a long article (for The Wall Street Journal, Europe, reproduced in several European newspapers) stating the need to "re-draw the map of the Balkans". He first called for an "honest reappraisal", by NATO of the validity for maintaining Kosovo, by the use of troops, in the Republic of Yugoslavia, against the will of over 90% of its inhabitants". In exchange for possible autonomy, "the Albanian Muslim leaders and Muslims within the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, "must accept a modification to the current borders. Lord Owen then considers that the independence of Montenegro has not to be rejected out of hand, but made conditional on providing Serbia access to the sea through the Bay of Kotor, thanks to the transfer of a part of the territory of the Bosnian Serb State. According to him, however, "politically, there is little room for an adjustment of the border, even the most minute, in Macedonia" and "the aspirations for a greater Albania must be contained with firmness if we want to stabilize the Balkans". To those who claim that a change to the current map of the Balkans would amount to "opening up the Pandora Box", Lord Owen answered that the readjustment he was proposing "represents the best hope of ensuring lasting peace in the region"
I'm obviously not in a position to judge the contents of the Owen Plan; I simply limit myself to the observation that a former Secretary to the Foreign Office, then responsible for a specific European task on the ground, considers that lasting peace if far from being assured by the complex formulas concocted by international organisations and by the Great of this world, who ride roughshod over the ethnic realities and the will of the populations.
Two obvious (and dramatic) failures. Some results of the policy conducted are there for all to see. The West went to war, notably in defence of the Muslims of Bosnia, only then to observe that the latest terrorists to have she blood in France were "trained in Bosnian camps" (they were obviously not the same people that the philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy frequented in Sarajevo). The High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Wolfgang Petritsch, painted a very dark picture of the situation last October; the international community, he observed, has over five yeas provided 5 billion in aid and has seen nothing from it. Half of the 2 million refugees have not returned home, barriers between Muslim, Serb and Croat terrorists are being consolidated. Mr. Petritsch noted that a good part of the international community had "already withdrawn, intellectually and politically, from this country as they consider Bosnian politicians to be so irresponsible that they could no longer continue to provide aid", and that a total withdrawal is not to be ruled out. Having settled the Bosnian affair, NATO intervened massively against Milosevic - operation justified at the outset - and ended by destroying the bridges over the Danube and polluting the whole region to protect Kosovars who then refused to hand in their weapons and began using them against neighbouring countries and even against UN peace troops! The UN's special Envoy, Carl Bildt last month expressed his disgust at having noted that "the territories that NATO and the United Nations are meant to control serve as basis for terrorist attacks on a neighbouring country.". It's true that those responsible have been severely ticked off by international organisations, headed by the EU, and who risk, if they continue, a further angry declaration from the President of the Council and a resolution in the European Parliament.
When a Minister forgets the "official discourse". Clearly, we should not see everything in black. Most Macedonian citizens of Albanian origin have not, so far at least, supported the armed infiltration from Kosovo, and the current crimes committed by the Kosovars must not lead one to forget the previous crimes of which they were the victims. We a reaching the heart of the problem: no definitive reconciliation will be possible if the populations concerned continue to mutually accuse each other of the harm suffered. The situation is not very different (even though the geographic basis is much smaller) to the countries that in the 50s created the European Communities: nothing would have been possible without a new departure based on democratic regimes, freedom and the respect of human rights in all the countries, including those that were responsible for crimes of nazism and fascism. This spirit of reconciliation cannot yet be seen in the Balkans. Certain leaders of these countries are multiplying their calls for financial assistance from the EU without implementing the very clear conclusions of the Zagreb Summit (see this section of 27 April). French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine declared at the end of last year (but in an interview, not in an official speech): "The Union all too often tends to consider itself as a bank of regional development crossed with the Red Cross. Europe is a political ideal, values. We must pass on ideas, know-how, to, for example, help build the Rule of Law, to develop social policy or urbanism, etc.. To pay out without counting in an ill-prepared environment, it's taking the risk that the money will be wasted, misappropriated even. These countries will have to manage their post-war politically and in a humane manner, with all that that involves, and build a new relationship between themselves. We can encourage them, but nobody can do it for them. It has to come from the people themselves". He did, however, conclude that he had "confidence in the process begun".
The role of organised crime. To what extent is organised crime playing a negative role in the ongoing process? It's a agonizing problem, over which I obviously have no direct sources of information, but I read and I listen. A first denunciation, of an unusual violence given the source, came from Italian Finance Minister Mr. Del Turco who complained to the Montenegrin President, Mr. Djukanovic, for having protected Prudentino crime bosses, traffickers in cigarettes, arms, drugs and human beings. He recalled that the EcoFin Council had refused financing for Montenegro as long as law had not been reestablished and the government cooperate with the fight against organised crime. Concerning cigarettes in particular, the minister accused the multinationals, Philip Morris and Renyolds of selling to Montenegro (which only has a few hundred thousand inhabitants or so) a sufficient volume of cigarettes to cover the demand of a country like Germany or Italy. Italian organised crime, with the backing of the local authorities, took care of the rest. Investigations proved that there were other "tobacco roads" (through Antwerp and Rotterdam, through the Baltic countries, through Cyprus, Lebanon and South Africa), but Montenegro had become the main one.
As for drugs, Afghanistan is now the world's largest producer of opium, which transits through Turkey but then takes the "Balkans road" (Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia). Albanian criminals are said to dominate the traffic in the chemical precursor of synthetic drugs, having overtaken - with extremely violent methods - the Turkish gangs and Italian mafia. A journalistic investigation states that the actions of the Kosovars in Macedonia have as real goal to protect the illegal or criminal trafficking roads. Liberation army? Bandits, more like. A joint letter from the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair and Italian, Mr. Amato, published at the end of last year in several papers throughout Europe, and too quickly forgotten, stated that the Western Balkans had become the main route for the trafficking in human beings, and said there were some 50,000 illegal immigrants who had entered the EU passing through Bosnia in the first six months of 2000. Some investigations indicate Sarajevo and Belgrade among the cities that operate specialised offices of illegal passers (notably Chinese). On the Italian coasts, some landings give the impression of having gone back several centuries, to the time of the pirates: children and women thrown into the sea by gangs ready to do anything for money and who do not hesitate to use weapons, in cooperation with Italian criminals.
I note that two countries (Slovenia and Croatia) are not explicitly cited in any troubled situation, and I recognise that there can be exaggeration and imprecision in the testimonies and stances I have referred to. Bu there is no point in painting an idyllic picture of the situation. The EU must act firmly if it wants its policy in this region to be effective.
(F.R.)