As someone who believes deeply in the sanctity of human life, who opposes the death penalty and feels uncomfortable at best with abortion, I think I should feel guilty about this, but I'm happy to hear the news that Slobodan Milosevic has died. If there is an afterlife with any type of karmic retribution, his soul is now experiencing the punishment it deserves; and if there isn't, then the world became a better place the moment he was no longer in it.

I am aware that there are Serbs who disagree with me, who to this day see him as the savior of their people. Likewise, I am aware that his death cheats the war crimes tribunal of its biggest catch and reduces the possibility that the tribunal's work can achieve the goal of exposing the truth about the Yugoslav civil war. But neither of those are compelling reasons to mourn.

Slobodan Milosevic was an examplar of an all-too-common breed: the politician who sought to exploit ethnic and cultural tensions to bring himself to power by enhancing fault lines within the society and pitting different social groups against one another, not for the gain of one group or the other, but for his gain. He skillfully rose to power by manipulating Serb anger at, and fear of, the Albanian majority in the autonomous region of Kosovo. His most notable actions in the years before the revolutions of 1989 involved dissolving the autonomous self-governments of Vojvodina, Kosovo, and Montenegro. His promotion of a vibrant Serbian nationalism scared the leaders of the other groups in the Yugoslav federation; they were directly responsible for the final collapse of the Yugoslav ideal, and to the collapse of the cross-ethnic unity of the Yugoslav Communist Party.

Many Serbs think he did these things for them. There is nothing, other than wishful thinking, to support that view. He did these things because he was the most powerful Serb, and because enhancing Serb power within the federation would enhance his power. He, like all of the leaders of Yugoslavia in the last years of the Communist era, had a choice: he could ride Serb nationalism to power, seeking to control it and use it to improve his position; or he could stand against nationalism and for the ideal of inter-ethnic comity. He chose the former course despite warnings that the break down of ethnic comity would likely lead to an uncivil war. He failed his people in that moment. (This is not to claim that either Alija Izetbegovic or Franjo Tudjman were any less guilty; the question of their guilt does not ameliorate the degree of Milosevic's). His failures as a leader brought his country to the brink of war.

And then he compounded them.

Despite the deteriorating situation, so vividly described in Balkan Ghosts, there was still a chance to avert disaster as Yugoslavia hurtled into the abyss. Milosevic did not take that chance; indeed, by pushing for a "Greater Serbia", by encouraging the Serbs in the breakway provinces to form ethnically pure enclaves which could join with the rump Yugoslav state, he exacerbated them. It is true that a leadership bent on preventing the civil war might not have been able to stop it, given how inflamed passions were. But it is also true that Milosevic didn't try; rather than trying to put out the fire, he poured gasoline on it -- which was, perhaps, understandable: he had been one of the primary lighters of the fire in the first place.

Slobodan Milosevic was not the only villian in the Yugoslav tragedy. But he was the primary villain. He was not the only leader who failed; but it was his failures, ongoing over the course of almost a decade, which contributed the most to pushing his country into war. Whether or not he was technically guilty of war crimes, it was his decision to flame ethnic passions for political gain which invoked the spectre of civil war. It matters little whether or not he was directing and controlling the beast he had created, or if he had simply lost control of it entirely - for the ravenousness of the beast could have been predicted by anyone with even a passing familiarity with mid-century Yugoslav history. Even if his worst crime was negligence, he should have known what he risked wreaking.

The world, and Serbia in particular, are well rid of him.

What is a superpower and holder of the moral high ground to do when no matter what they do, they are criticised?

"At some point in time - sooner rather than later - you've got to say 'Enough is enough. Kosovo is independent', and that's the position we've taken," Bush said during a news conference with the prime minister of this impoverished Balkan country.

SMH

It is probably the most justifiable position to take - governance has to acquiescence of the governed or it can't ever work from either perspective.

And yet, at the risk of enduring the contempt of the contemptible for my ability to hold seemingly contradictory thoughts in my head, and fearing to fall prey to the dreaded Motives Fallacy, one can't help but wonder what George W. Bush will say when the Iraqi Kurds and the Taiwanese say that enough is quite enough, thanks for coming.

I suppose it depends on who has to deal with the shitstorm that results when China or Turkey starts lobbing bits of metal large and small.

It's perfectly all right to support the idea of Kosovar independence; it would certainly behoove him to pay some lip service to the dichotomies. On the one hand the US is happy to support independence when the opposition is weak - somehow I can't see Russia starting a war no matter how much they support Serbia. On the other, they tell the Kurds and the Taiwanese to cool it, suck it up, enough isn't quite enough yet. It doesn't seem frivolous to note that Turkey is US ally and China, the enemy of the Taiwanese, are major trading partners, holders of many many US dollars and armed with nukes.

And yet...the US more or less ignored the Balkans during the nineties - when the Croatians were expressing themselves - and were roundly criticised for it. There was even a pop song released calling on the US and the UK to intervene. They functionally ignored various uprisings behind the Iron Curtain and have rightly been criticised for it for years. What is a superpower and holder of the moral high ground - despite the reality - to do?

I suppose there is only so much that can be done. Certain quotes from a Condoleezza Rice profile in the June 2007 Atlantic - which is behind a subscription wall, sorry - expressed the opinion that US efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace are really only the end-result of months, or years, of effort behind the scenes by Israelis and Palestinians; when Rabin and Arafat shook hands, when Sadat and Begin shook hands, the US State Department took home credit when their contribution was merely the tip of the iceberg. That could be true, could be just disgruntled grumblings - although the quotes were from a retired head of Mossad, so hardly someone never listened to - and either way it hardly seems relevant what they are since all the peace accords have failed. So if the US just stepped up like your Dad agreeing to be a co-signer on your first car loan, or if the US had its fingerprints over every aspect during the entire timeline, it seems clear that the US can't do much when there are intractable issues between both sides and when it is politically - geo- and/or internally - unpalatable to make the sides compromise. Even when compromise does occur, the US can't force acceptance by the internal parties, thus the downfall of the Oslo Accords.

To answer my question, there is nothing they can do. They will be criticised no matter what tack they take on any and all questions of the fate of other nations. One can only ask that the policy each individual (it hardly seems fair to ask Bush to stay consistent with Clinton) administration remain internally consistent. So if the people of Kosovo are entitled to say that enough is enough and that they can go their own way, then it seems fair to ask that the Kurds be informed that there will be Army divisions and flight crews ready to hand down a world of pain to any Turkish military elements that cross the border if or when the Iraqi Kurds declare independence. Or Iraqi military elements, for that matter. But, that will never happen. Instead, for the sake of saving face, the Kurds are more likely than not being told it suck it up.