After Zippergate and the Starr Report, could politics get any more warped? You wouldn't think so. After all, in little more than a decade, we've gone from arms for hostages, covert war in Latin America, and prime time bombings in Iraq to the wall-to-wall circus that placed the president's penis in the center ring for a constitutional trapeze act. But then the corporate pimps, media sycophants, and political fixers who convinced voters to put a B-grade actor, a drugged-up Yalie, and a world-class narcissist in charge of the world's only superpower came up with a blockbuster not even DreamWorks could have packaged.
Yes, sir, it's the title bout of the century. Presidential Death Match 2000. You don't need a ticket to get a seat for this $2 billion fatal distraction. But there's no way out until the last pundit sings.
When he retired from the Senate, that great white hoopster Bill Bradley, now offering up his "authentic inner core" in the presidential race, said "politics is broken." But it's worse than that. If the candidacy of George "Dubya" Bush is any indication, it's become a rite of succession that makes the presidency look more and more like an inherited crown.
Deep Pockets, Demagogues, and the Democrat's Big Sleep
Apparently, the two crucial traits that endear Dubya to GOP stalwarts are his fundraising prowess and family pedigree. Sure, he's also a governor -- in a state where the job is as taxing as hosting a celebrity golf tournament. Mainly, he's taken credit for reforms that were already in the legislative pipeline. But then again, Texas does rank first in executions, proving at least that the younger Bush has the killer instinct essential for any "compassionate conservative." And he was the brains behind Texas' "war on sex," a proposal with a $9 million price tag to "encourage young people to save sex for marriage."
Barring divine intervention, Dubya will likely waltz through primary season. The climax will be a coronation by power-starved Republicans who'd rather back a born-again frat boy with a fat bankroll than face the reality that their rescuer has the moral compass of a turkey buzzard. Meanwhile, Democrats struggle to stay awake long enough to see whether their incumbent vice president, who had the nomination wired a year ago, can stave off a challenge from the politician formerly known as Senator Sominex. The pundits are calling the Gore-Bradley contest a legitimate horse race, but so far it's like watching pelicans mate in slow motion.
Even when these two raise "serious" issues, the goal is to talk tough while taking as few risks as possible. How else do you explain Gore's lame attempt to turn concern about sprawl into a bold departure? And I hate to disillusion people who think Bradley is fighting for universal health coverage, but subsidies for the poor and tax breaks for the middle class -- two major chunks of his "big idea" -- won't fix the mess created by HMOs and insurance company bean counters.
So, forget substance. The real question is whether Bradley's awkward warmth and celebrity status can overcome Gore's effective exploitation of patronage and federal pork to win early support from elected officials and party hacks. It's an image battle in which both contestants badly need a personality transplant.
And as if this isn't weird enough, Reform -- Ross Perot's facsimile of a party, linking naïve populism with potentially dangerous nativism -- may feature the most contentious nomination fight of all. Many Perotistas now prefer Jesse "the gov" Ventura, the most cheeky demagogue since Huey Long. But Ventura, who hasn't hesitated to trash religion and revel in junk culture, is being coy about running. Instead, he's thrown up alternatives such as Lowell Weicker and Donald Trump. In 1990, Weicker, a former GOP senator, did wage a successful third-party campaign for governor of Connecticut. But he's yesterday's news. And running The Donald? That would be like spraying the party with voter repellent.
Which brings us to Pat Buchanan: Nixon apologist, CNN commentator, and the man who declared our current "culture war" during his 1992 bid. At the time, columnist Carl Rowan called Buchanan's convention speech "the closest I have ever heard to a Nazi address."
Since his last presidential run in 1996, Buchanan's status has changed dramatically, from right-wing avatar to potentially "radioactive" weapon of GOP destruction. George Will, the conservative spear-carrier who trained Ronald Reagan for his 1980 presidential debates, recently came close to calling his fellow tele-columnist a fascist. He and other conservatives wish he'd just disappear, uncomfortable having him either in or out of the Republican Party.
Buchanan has other ideas. Determined to debate Dubya and whoever bores the Democrats least, he's finally opted to jump ship for the Reform nomination. Earlier, Perot welcomed the interest. But now that Pat's isolationist take on Hitler and WWII has brought his other mutant ideas into question, that could change. Unfortunately, it's too late. Scorned by most Republicans, with the mysterious exception of Dubya -- who appears to live by that old Mafia proverb about keeping enemies close -- Pat apparently sees no choice but to lead his pitchfork brigade into Reform for a hostile political take over.
The guy is like some tenacious alien creature that can only be killed when projected deep into outer space. And maybe not even then.
Looks ARE Everything
Sometimes I suspect this political season is some sort of conspiracy, a made-for-TV event designed by media moguls to boost ratings and transfer escalating production costs to campaign contributors. They're already the beneficiaries of federal matching funds, which largely go toward paying for TV ads. Think about it: US media is basically controlled by a handful of conglomerates, and the key players probably all pee on the same tree at Bohemian Grove. Since they're forced to cover presidential candidates anyway, maybe they just decided to handle the casting and plot points as well.
But no, they're not that clever. And anyway, not even the WB would air a series in which the callow son of an ex-president is challenged for the nomination by the wife of a former nominee. That's pushing suspension of disbelief too far, isn't it? And yet, until recently, there they were -- Dubya and Liddy Dole -- living proof that the US does have a political aristocracy. Now that she's dropped out, the only thing left is a royal wedding at the GOP convention. Imagine the ratings for that.
Still, this is the most media-driven campaign ever. For example, the first question about every candidate nowadays is how he or she comes across on the tube. The next -- long before we know much about their positions -- is whether they're capturing sufficiently high ratings to get picked up for the second season. Cokie, Sam, and the rest of the punditocracy talk about each candidate's fundraising ability as if that's the main qualification for office. Surrendering to this logic, Dan Quayle recently admitted he was dropping out essentially because Dubya's $60 million war chest proved he was the best man for the job. So much for ideology.
To make an impression, most candidates turn themselves into stereotypes. If they don't do it, talking heads and late-night hosts will. The name of the game is image management. Steve Forbes even thinks he can buy an image and, perhaps, the presidency itself. He's wrong. No amount of money can compensate for his pervasive nerdiness, not to mention eyes that make you wonder whether his father, the even more bizarre Malcolm, had Steve built in an underground lab. Luckily, we're not yet ready to elect someone with the affect of an android -- with the possible exception of Gore.
To paraphrase Billy Crystal's Fernando, it's better to look presidential than actually say too much. In a way, the less said the better. Having learned that lesson, John McCain -- the GOP's anti-Bush -- gives monosyllabic responses to issue questions, yet drips sincerity whenever he gets the chance to talk about God and country. His mantra is simple: As a war hero, I love America so much it's simply my duty to be president. McCain doesn't have to mention being a POW. He knows the media will make the connection, and play clips of him in captivity so often many people will want to invade Vietnam all over again.
As image takes center stage, it stands to reason that the best candidate is really just the best actor. And that makes Warren Beatty's possible run something to consider more seriously. He's certainly telegenic, and he's been playing roles for 40 years, including an effective turn as a suicidal senator. He knows how to raise money for big productions, and also understands the importance of marketing an image. Plus, he wants public campaign financing, which would at least make the race a more balanced ensemble piece.
Sneak Previews
Until money is removed from the equation, we might as well think of primary races as a series of TV pilots, each competing for the best advance notices. From Stiff Neck Productions, for example, comes Fistful of Moolah. It's a modern-day Western in which Dubya plays the Man with No Scruples, blowing away bible-slinging rivals like Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes with tough love and silver bullets. Even Pat Robertson sacrifices his principles before Dubya's altar of expedience. The Moral Minority gang doesn't have a prayer -- unless the Man ultimately discovers that El Dorado is place called Family Values.
Empty Promises Unlimited is offering a science fiction saga, Millennium Man. In this US-Chinese production, Gore is cast as The Chosen One, a loyal cyborg who struggles to overcome his programming by returning to the heartland. But his mission is undermined by the arrival of Morpheus, a famous athlete-turned-preacher with the power to lull the masses into a false sense of hope. At the preview I attended, most people didn't believe either hero could save the nation from terminal ennui.
But the season's surprise hit may turn out to be Mission Improbable, produced by Oddball Enterprises in association with a consortium of casino owners and the World Wrestling Federation. In order to save the world, a team of highly-decorated misfits wages psychological warfare on the two major political parties. The problem is that they can't resist trashing each other. Perot makes a guest appearance as the cranky team leader, who gives incomprehensible assignments and can't help upstaging his own men.
Beatty may also launch a series called The Paranoid View. But so far he's been unable to develop a story line in which he isn't assassinated.
Diehard on the Campaign Trail
If I were in tinseltown right now, I'd pitch a political thriller that takes all this insanity to the next level. The timing is perfect for a high concept property ripped from the headlines, I'd explain. Just give us the green light, and I guarantee this will make Air Force One look like a trip to the mall. (Sorry, Harrison.)
Set in the near future, the story revolves around a three-way campaign for the presidency. It opens at the Republican convention, where the front runner - played by Michael Douglas, doing his Gordon Gekko thing as a well connected governor with a huge war chest -- has just locked up the nomination. He's born to rule and totally ruthless. In the opening sequence, there's an assassination attempt by some lone nut. Manchurian candidate stuff. The crowd goes wild, the nut becomes Swiss cheese, and the candidate gets a huge sympathy bump. It's all very convenient. After the smoke clears, Michael fires up the delegates with a killer acceptance speech about courage, the virtues of greed, and crushing any "extremists" who get in the way.
But he has a problem -- and it's not his major party opponent. I see Kevin Costner for that role. He's perfect to play the former basketball star turned politician. Kind of Mr. Smith in Washington, full of principles, but no instinct for the jugular. Even friends say he's charismatically-challenged. No, Michael's real trouble is the growing support for a third party insurgent, a tough-taking former talk show host and Dubya-Dubya-FU pro wrestler. The part has Schwartzenegger written all over it. But we need to move fast, since Arnold may run for governor of California if his next pictures bomb.
So, Michael is obviously worried; the way things look, he could lose the race to a jock, either way. He isn't about to let that happen.
After the usual complications -- Kevin cheats on his wife but regrets it, Arnold has a crisis of confidence when his campaign is dogged by dirty tricks -- we get to the big debate. What Kevin and Arnold don't know is that Michael, who maintains secret ties to Islamic fundamentalists through the Christian Right, has struck a deal with a charming but insane terrorist. Think John Malkovich. The plan is that Malkovich's hit team will take out Arnold right on TV -- shades of Network -- clearing the way for Michael to ride the ensuing tidal wave of paranoia into the White House. Malkovich's reward: Afghanistan. Michael promises to pin the blame on Ghaddafi or Saddam, and bomb their patsy's nation back into the Stone Age.
The plot misfires, of course, and Arnold goes on the warpath, hunting down Malkovich in some Middle Eastern hell hole, and eventually cornering Michael in his high-security estate. Plenty of kick-ass executive action. In the end, Michael is either indicted or impaled on a replica of the Statue of Liberty. Depends on how the test screenings go. In any case, Kevin becomes president. But Arnold doesn't mind. He's realized that self-respect is more important than popularity.
Arnold delivers the film's catch phrase just after smashing some fundamentalist thug's head through a camera lens. "Smile," he growls, "you've just been nominated."
The title? Momentum. And below, in the ads: "Some people will do anything for it." Ain't that the truth. And the beauty part is that the movie's bound to cost less and entertain more than the real thing.
Eugene M. Scribner, a retired political consultant, currently lives on nuts and berries in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom.
As the clock strikes 12 midnight on December 31, 1999, the world will hold its collective breath waiting to see if the predicted computer problems associated with Y2K will come to pass. Apart from Y2K disruptions feared in banking and the distribution of food, water and fuel - there are several critical areas, often overlooked, which could cause massive loss of life and catastrophic public health emergencies.
Nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons systems, we're told, are Y2K compliant. But are these lethal systems and the public vulnerable to unthinkable Y2K disasters? The U.S. government itself states that not all utilities that run nuclear power stations will have completed computer safeguards to protect against millennium accidents. And the Pentagon has announced that 23 separate nuclear weapons systems will not be repaired in time to meet the Y2K deadline. Many observers are fearful that the situation is far worse in other nations which possess nuclear technology, such as cash-strapped Russia.
Between the Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at the City University of New York, who analyzes the risk of Y2K-related accidents at nuclear power plants and with nuclear weapons systems.
Michio Kaku: I think the average person doesn't realize how vulnerable we are to potential catastrophe, especially in Russia, but also in the United States with regard to nuclear power plants and weapons. In the United States, we have 103 commercial nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC) has now given up hope that they will be Y2K compliant. Now this is scandalous, if you think about it. The NRC has stated that reactors only have to be Y2K-ready. Not Y2K compliant by the end of the year.
In fact, it turns out that 29 of the 103 nuclear power plants in the United States are not even Y2K ready yet. In other words, if a manufacturer says, Scout's honor, cross my heart and hope to die, this pump will not fail, then that pump can be placed online and then that pump can be certified "Y2K ready." Y2K compliant means you've tested these things. Therefore, the NRC itself has admitted that it expects perhaps one reactor to fail Dec. 31st. That's remarkable, that the government itself has pretty much admitted now that perhaps one reactor will fail mainly because of the cost it takes to make sure that all the reactors are in fact Y2K compliant.
Now the main problem is the energy grid and the power supply. The Y2K problem could very easily knock out the power and the diesel generators of a nuclear power plant. We've already had enormous problems with diesel generators. If the diesel generators are knocked out, we are talking about total loss of power at a nuclear power plant.
Now, if that's not bad enough, in Russia, it is perhaps a thousand times worse. Because the Russian government has publicly stated there is no money to get its reactors up to speed and they are relying now on the United States to send teams of computer experts to Russia to help them upgrade their equipment. So not only are we expecting at least one major problem with a reactor in the United States, according to the federal government's own estimates, but in Russia it's so bad now that the British embassy has sent a secret memo out, which was leaked out a few weeks ago stating that British diplomats and their families should stay away from Russia during New Year's.
Between the Lines: Could you tell us about some of the glitches that could occur in terms of nuclear weapons systems both here in the United States and Russia where there is a "launch on warning system" in place -- where false radar detection of imminent nuclear attack could trigger off worldwide conflagration?
MK: The problem with Y2K is you could wipe out the radar and electrical systems, whereby our nuclear arsenal would be blind. And if the remaining radar systems picked up a bird or whatever, we're not going to have backup systems to determine whether that bird is really a bird or a missile.
This actually happened in Russia a few years ago. It turned out that a Scandinavian country asked permission from the Russians to send a weather missile up that would get close to Russia. They got permission to do so. They sent the missile, but the permission never reached the Kremlin. And so, Russian President Boris Yeltsin was not aware of the fact that this missile was being launched. So when this missile was detected by the Russians, the Russians' early defense people freaked out, and relayed the message to the Kremlin that Moscow was under attack. That is, a missile could very well impact the Kremlin, and if they waited too long, they would be radioactive ash. That's the danger of "launch on warning." That if you launch on a bird, if you launch at the sighting of an airplane, or the sighting of a weather missile, then you are on a hair-trigger basis whereby you could set off a full-fledged nuclear war.
But the situation is much worse. Because the Russians have officially announced last month they cannot be Y2K compliant. They simply don't have the resources to go through the computer code and find out where the mistakes are. What they are going to do is they're going to try to do some simulations. Which is a very poor way to do it. But better than nothing. They've asked for American help, so the US government is going to be sending over groups of computer experts. But the danger here again, is if they have loss of power, meaning radar systems don't work, they are operating blind with the few systems that are unrealiable.
And that's why many environmental groups have advocated a positive program. As far as commercial nuclear power plants go, you can shut them down and ride out the Y2K problem. But with regards to a nuclear missile what they can do is remove our missiles from "launch on warning." So that we have our president and humans analyze what's happening without having computers launch a nuclear attack on the hint that we're being attacked by the Russians.
However I should point out that Congress gave the Pentagon a "D" when it comes to being Y2K compliant. So, cross your fingers when it comes to Dec. 31st.
To obtain more information on the dangers connected with Y2K and nuclear technology, visit the Nuclear Information Resource Service Web site at http://www.nirs.org
Scott Harris is WPKN Radio's public affairs director and executive producer of Between the Lines. This interview was featured on WPKN 89.5 FM's weekly news magazine for the week ending Oct. 1 1999. Access the archive of BTL radio shows at: http//www.wpkn.org/betweenthelines. Between The Lines Q&A is compiled and edited by Anna Manzo. To purchase a subscription, contact or call (203)544-9863.
The approach of the year 2000 has stimulated widespread discussion of apocalyptic fears and millennialist expectations. Yet, often lost in the discussion is the important ongoing role that specific types of apocalyptic and millennialist thinking play in shaping the demonization, scapegoating, and conspiracies used by various right-wing political and social movements.
A remarkable number of myths and symbols in Western culture flow from Christian Biblical prophecies about apocalyptic confrontations and millennial transformation. The Book of Revelation warns that the end of time is foreshadowed by a vast Satanic conspiracy involving high government officials who betray the decent and devout productive citizens, while subversive tools of the Devil gnaw away at society from below.
The anticipation of a righteous struggle against evil conspiracies has become a central apocalyptic narrative. This is certainly evident in popular films such as Armageddon and the TV series Millennium, which name the tradition while mainstreaming the ideas. Films like Mad Max and Terminator reinterpret apocalyptic visions while obscuring their origins. The X-Files film and TV series are quintessential apocalyptic narratives. Buffy the Vampire Slayer stomps incarnate evil in a weekly TV series.
What is entertainment for some, however, is spiritual and political reality for others. The irrational fear of powerful conspiracies - conspiracism - has flourished episodically throughout US history. Usually, right-wing groups have fanned apocalyptic fears to create a powerful political weapon. The results can be devastating. There have been crusades against sin, waves of government repression, and campaigns to purge alien ideas and persons. Starting in the 1620s, witch hunts swept New England for a century, and fears of Freemason or Catholic plots swept the nation in the 1800s. This century has produced allegations of a Jewish banking cabal behind the Federal Reserve, and the anticommunist purges of 1950s McCarthyism.
Could it happen again now? Holly Sklar, author of Chaos or Community: Seeking Solutions, Not Scapegoats for Bad Economics, argues that it might: "The demonization of immigrants, welfare recipients, people of color, and single mothers is already tolerated to an alarming degree in mainstream political debate. Now as we head toward the millennium, we also face the rising fervor of those driven by visions of culture war and apocalypse."
Cast of Characters
Contemporary interpretations of apocalyptic millennialism can be sorted into three related, overlapping tendencies. In the view of some Christian fundamentalists, we are in the apocalyptic millennial "End Times" or "Last Days" prophesied in Revelation and other biblical books. An often secularized apocalyptic world-view of impending crisis is reflected in diverse political movements. There is also a generic sense of expectation and renewal, generated merely by the approach of the calendar year 2000, a milestone in recorded history.
These fears and expectations influence three broad, right-wing movements in the US:
Activists in various sectors of the Christian Right with varying views regarding whether the year 2000 marks the End Times. This includes attempts by Christian hard-liners to purify society as part of a religious revival, such as the homophobic statements by Trent Lott and advertisements calling on homosexuals to "cure" themselves. The most aggressive activists engage in theologically-motivated violence against abortion providers.
Right-wing populists, including survivalists, gun rights activists, anti-elite conspiracists, and participants in the Patriot and armed militia movements. Conspiracist scapegoating is rampant in this sector. A popular speaker is Robert K. Spear, who believes the formation of armed Christian communities is necessary as we approach the End Times. Preparing to survive the coming apocalypse has led to a subculture that stores food and conducts self-defense training.
The far right, including neo-Nazis and persons influenced by far-right versions of the Christian Identity religion. Identity beliefs were behind the assassination of Denver talk show host Alan Berg, the tragic shoot-out between federal agents and the Weaver family in Idaho, and possibly the brutal dragging death of a Black man in Jasper, Texas.
The approaching millennium creates an apocalyptic milieu in which demonization, scapegoating, and conspiracism could have serious consequences. If we are to limit the potential short-term damage and understand the significance of the long-term dynamic, we need to better understand the thinking of those who live in the shadow of the Apocalypse.
Millennial Flashpoint
For most Christians, the year 2000 will be a time of celebration, reflection, and renewal. Contemporary Christian fundamentalists interpret Revelation as a prophetic warning about tumultuous apocalyptic events that herald the second coming of Christ. Most also believe that when Christ returns, he will reign for a period of 1000 years - a millennium.
Yet, the turn of the calendar doesn't necessarily have theological significance. Norman Cohn, in The Pursuit of the Millennium, chronicles how Christian apocalyptic fervor appears at seemingly random dates. A major US episode of Christian millennialist fervor occurred among the Millerites in the 1840s. Any date in any calendar system (Judaic or Islamic, for example) can be understood as significant given the creativity of numerologists.
But the rotund numerological significance of the year 2000 has spawned diverse millennialist expectations, with apocalyptic warnings now coming from contemporary Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and New Age prophets.
Visit a large bookstore and scan the titles in the religion, prophecy, new age, and occult sections and you will see a cornucopia of books anticipating the year 2000. Surfing the Web reveals a pulsating multimedia cacophony of millennial expectation. The range of topics and style reflect what Michael Barkun has called an "improvisational style" of millennialism and apocalypticism.
Dueling Traditions
In Anti-Apocalypse, academic Lee Quinby argues, "Apocalypticism in each of its modes fuels discord, breeds anxiety or apathy, and sometimes causes panic," and that "this process can occur at the individual, community, national, or international level.
"What makes apocalypse so compelling," argues Quinby, "is its promise of future perfection, eternal happiness, and godlike understanding of life, but it is that very will to absolute power and knowledge that produces its compulsions of violence, hatred, and oppression."
Yet, not all contemporary Christian interpretations of Revelation promote demonization. Within Christianity, there are two competing views of how to interpret the Bible's apocalyptic themes. One view identifies evil with specific persons and groups, seeking to identify those in league with the Devil. This view easily lends itself to demonization. A more positive form of interpreting apocalyptic prophecy is promoted by Christians who see evil in the will to dominate and oppress. Apocalyptic thinking, in this case, envisions a liberation for the oppressed. The two interpretations represent a deep division within Christianity.
Even some relatively conservative and orthodox Christians look to the prophetic tradition of siding with the poor and oppressed. These themes can be found in both the New and Old Testaments, in the tradition of the Social Gospel in Protestantism, and in Catholicism's Liberation Theology. It can be found in today's Sojourners group and the tradition of "prophetic anger" coupled with "evangelical populism." Social justice activist Daniel Berrigan uses biblical apocalyptic discourse to challenge oppression, corruption, and tyranny.
Philosopher RenŽ Girard argues that the New Testament can be used to help unravel scapegoating. Author and activist Cornel West identifies himself with a prophetic tradition rooted in African-American Christianity and the struggle for Black civil rights. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached from this tradition when he spoke truth to power.
In fact, some of the most vocal critics of apocalyptic demonization and conspiracist scapegoating come from within Christianity. One such critique is Gregory S. Camp's impressive Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Camp warns of the "very real danger that Christians could pick up some extra spiritual baggage" by credulously embracing conspiracy theories. As early as 1993, Bruce Barron wrote a stinging rebuke of apocalyptic Christian conspiracism in the Christian Research Journal when reviewing Pat Robertson's The New World Order and Gary H. Kah's En Route to Global Occupation.
Even skeptics can attempt to be respectful of Christianity, as is author Tim Callahan in Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? as he debunks the idea that the Bible can be used as a crystal ball. The danger comes not from Christianity, but from Christians who combine Biblical literalism, apocalyptic timetables, demonization, and oppressive prejudices.
The Logic of Oppression
The poisoned fruit of conspiracist scapegoating is baked into the American apple pie, and the ingredients include destructive versions of apocalyptic fears and millennialist expectations. This is true of the sector of the Christian Right that is consciously influenced by Biblical prophecy, or more secularized right-wing movements for which Bible-based apocalypticism and millennialism have faded into unconscious, yet influential, metaphors. To fully comprehend the subtext of many US right-wing movements, we need to review the interactive dynamics among demonization, scapegoating, and conspiracism.
Demonization: It often begins with marginalization, by which targeted individuals or groups are placed outside wholesome mainstream society through political propaganda and age-old prejudice. The next step is objectification or dehumanization, labeling a person or group of people so they become perceived more as objects than as people. Dehumanization often is associated with the belief that a particular group is inferior or threatening. The final step is demonization; the person or group is seen as totally malevolent, sinful, and evil. Needless to say, it's easier to rationalize stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and even violence against those who are dehumanized or demonized.
Demonization fuels dualism that divides the world into good versus evil with no middle ground. Dualism promotes hostility toward those who suggest coexistence, toleration, pragmatism, compromise, or mediation. James Aho observes that our notion of the enemy "in our everyday life world" is that the "enemy's presence in our midst is a pathology of the social organism serious enough to require the most far-reaching remedies: quarantine, political excision, or, to use a particularly revealing expression, liquidation and expulsion."
Scapegoating: The ritualized transference of evil onto a demonized "other" and the expulsion of that "evil" is a familiar theme. In Western culture, the term "scapegoat" can be traced to an early Judaic ritual described in Leviticus. The term has evolved, however, to mean "anyone who must bear the responsibility symbolically or concretely for the sins of others," Richard Landes explains. "Psychologically, the tendency to find scapegoats is a result of the common defense mechanism of denial through projection."
However, you can't directly apply a psychological model to society. As psychiatrist Susan Fisher explains, the mechanism of scapegoating within a family doesn't necessarily work the same way as scapegoating on a social level where "the scapegoated group serves more as a metaphor."
Socially, it's a process whereby the hostility and aggression of an angry, frustrated group are directed away from a rational explanation, and projected onto targets demonized by irrational claims of wrongdoing. As a result, the scapegoat bears the blame for causing the conflict, while the scapegoaters feel a sense of innocence and increased unity. Scapegoating can be used as a rationale to justify the retention or acquisition of unfair power and privilege.
Scapegoats are often identified by demagogues - leaders willing to use emotionally-manipulative appeals coupled with simplistic and subjective explanations. The arguments used may seem obviously artificial, but given the unresolved anger and frustration of the persons being mobilized, any attempt at explaining and perhaps resolving the conflict seems better than indifference and inaction. Demagogues often portray the scapegoat as not merely culpable but actually evil and involved in a sinister conspiracy that threatens to sabotage society.
Conspiracism: It's very effective to mobilize mass support against a scapegoated enemy by claiming that the enemy is part of a vast, insidious conspiracy against the common good. In conspiracist discourse, the supposed conspirators serve as scapegoats for the actual social conflict.
The conspiracist world-view sees secret plots by tiny cabals of evildoers as the major motor powering important historical events. It makes irrational leaps of logic in analyzing factual evidence in order to "prove" connections, and constructs a closed metaphysical world-view highly resistant to criticism. By blaming a small group of individuals for vast or horrific crimes, conspiracism serves to divert attention from the institutional locus of power that drives systemic oppression, injustice, and exploitation.
In Western culture, conspiracist narratives are significantly influenced by biblical apocalyptic prophecy. In Arguing the Apocalypse, Stephen O'Leary contends that the process of demonization is central to all forms of conspiracist thinking. Leonard Zeskind argues it is impossible to analyze the contemporary political right without understanding the "all-powerful cosmology of diabolical evil." To Zeskind, conspiracy theories are "essentially theologically constructed views of events. Conspiracy theories are renderings of a metaphysical devil which is trans-historical, omnipotent, and destructive of God's will on earth."
Many current "conspiracy theories directed against the government are part of a rhetorical strategy genuinely intended to undermine state power and government authority," notes S. L. Gardiner. But this occurs in a "metaphysical context" in which "those in control are implicated in a Manichean struggle of absolute good against absolute evil. That they are the agents of the devil is proved by the very fact that they control a corrupt system." The fear of a subversive conspiracy to create a collectivist one world government, however, spans a continuum of beliefs from religious to secular.
A Grain of Truth
There are certainly mentally-unbalanced individuals who promote paranoid-sounding conspiracist theories. However, it's simplistic to imagine that these often anti-social people periodically join together to form large mass movements around shared goals. It is also naive to assume that power elites or government agencies are exclusively populated by paranoid leaders who see subversion behind social change and, therefore, unilaterally activate repressive state agencies.
Conspiracist scapegoating certainly involves psychological processes, but it has played an objective role as a useful social and political mechanism in actual power struggles throughout US history. Conspiracism can occur as a characteristic of mass movements, between sectors in an intra-elite power struggle, or as a justification for state agencies to engage in repressive actions. Conspiracist scapegoating appears not just on the political right but in center and left constituencies, as well. An entrenched network of conspiracy-mongering information outlets spreads dubious stories about public and private figures and institutions, using a variety of corporate and alternative media.
In highlighting conspiracist allegation as a form of scapegoating, it's important to remember:
All conspiracist theories start with a grain of truth, which is then transmogrified through hyperbole and filtered through pre-existing myth and prejudice.
People who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, which has concrete consequences.
Conspiracist thinking and scapegoating are symptoms, not causes, of underlying societal frictions, and shouldn't be ignored.
Scapegoating and conspiracist allegations are tools that can be used by cynical leaders to mobilize a mass following.
Supremacist and fascist organizers use conspiracist theories as a relatively unthreatening entry point in making contact with potential recruits.
Even when conspiracist theories don't center on Jews, people of color, or other scapegoated groups, they create an environment where racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice and oppression can flourish.
To be continued.
Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Reseach Associates (PRA), is also on the advisory board of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University. Future installments in this series, adapted from an article in PRA's Public Eye newsletter, will focus on the evolution of conspiracism, contemporary right-wing movements, and apocalyptical millennialism.
Among the lies and hypocrisies which characterize media reportage on NATO's aggression against Serbia is the absurd notion that NATO is somehow "fighting fascism". Ironically, the exact opposite turns out to be true.
Fascism wears many faces - not all of which involve stormtroopers and racial paranoia - and fascism wasn't always in such disfavor as it is today. Many in the US and Britain, especially among industrialists, openly welcomed the "order" brought by Hitler and Mussolini, and fascist governments have been supported by the US throughout the Third World in the postwar era. The history of fascism - and its role in preserving capitalist domination - provides an omionous perspective on NATO's actions in the Balkans.
Someone wrote to me that the important question about fascism is "How could anyone fall for it?". I suggest rather the question for our time is: "How can you recognize facism when it pretends to be something else?".
Fascism was, to begin at the beginning, an invention of capitalism, or shall we say, it was a collective invention of prominent Western industrialists and officials.
Hitler was originally recruited by German military intelligence to infiltrate a socialist labor party, which he eventually tranformed into the Nazi party. Hitler and Mussolini were financed, encouraged, and supported (mostly covertly) by Western industrialists, and Western governments, for the express purpose of suppressing grass-roots democratic forces (labor, socialist, communist, and anarchist movements) which were seeking to overcome capitalist domination.(1,2)
I looked up some Readers Digest articles from the thirties, just to sample the media party line of the day. I found an interview with two young Germans, one male one female, in which they explained all about the shiny new Germany, the virtues of eugenics, and about how Jews were like a cancer that had to be rooted out, even if unfortunate human suffering might be necessary. The article was a sympathetic one, not a crtique.
Hitler's Mein Kampf, written by Hitler while he kept a picture of Henry Ford on his desk, and whose main agenda is the subjugation of Russia, was on the public record. The extensive US investments and technology transfers to Nazi Germany contributed significantly to Germany's ability to eventually invade Russia, the avowed enemy of the capitalist system. General Motors and Ford (along with other US firms) operated manufacturing plants in Germany both before and throughout the war. The bombers which blitzed England were built in a General Motors plant.
After the war, Allen Dulles made it his mission to see that no US firm was punished for collaboration with the Nazis. In fact, far from denying their collaboration, General Motors and Ford demanded and received something like $30 million in compensation from the US government for damage to their plants from Allied bombing. More recently, when these facts reached public light, they were again not disputed - instead Ford and GM offered the excuse that their "subsidiaries were outside their control". This is all conclusively documented, and references are supplied at the end of this article.(1,2,3,4)
The US and Britain withheld their invasion of Europe until Russia began to turn the tide against the Nazis. Only then did Allied troops land in Italy and Normandy. This timing, along with other evidence, indicates a strategy aimed at limiting the western advance of Russian forces, more than a strategy of defeating Nazism as quickly as possible.(5,15) In fact Truman said outright:
If we see that Germany is winning we should help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible . . . - Harry S. Truman, 1941 (I believe the original source was a local newspaper in Independence, Mo.)
---
The use of fascist governments by the West to suppress local democracy was not abandoned after WW II, despite propaganda rhetoric about "free-world" democratization. Throughout the Third World, by means primarily of covert and military US interventions, fascist military dictatorships were installed in order to suppress local populations and facilitate exploitive capitalist operations.(11,12,13,15)
Racism and nationalism were both characteristic of German Nazism, but neither is characteristic of fascism in general. Racism and nationalism sold well in thirties Germany; in Mussolini's Italy the packaging involved a romantic revival of the Roman Empire; the packaging was different again in Franco's Spain, the Shah's Iran, Pinochet's Chile, and Marcos' Phillipines.
What characterizes fascism in all cases is police-state suppression of the population, and the delegation of economic operations to capitalist interests.
Mussolini was explicit about the relationship between fascism and capitalism, and took pride in the fact that he "got the trains running on time". Pinochet's first action in office was to restore the operations of the transnationals in Chile. Hitler was less explicit about the association, given the pseudo-socialist component of Goebbel's propaganda line, but it was Herr Krupp who was made Oberfuhrer of Industry for all Third Reich territories, and the majority of concentration camps were run as corporate slave-labor operations rather than as death camps per se. Krupp had to argue this point with Hitler, finally convincing him that it made more sense to work Jews to death rather than "wasting" them by killing them outright.(3)
---
Fascism is thus not a phenomenon which can be usefully studied in terms of the isolated national context, and certainly not in terms of the psychology of individual leaders. Power-mad leaders, charismatic or merely ruthless, can always be recruited - you only need one per target country. And any nation, if subjected to sufficient externally-driven destablization, can fall prey to fascism. How and why fascism arises can only be understood from the larger perspective - in the context of capitalist strategies to maintain global dominance.
Fascism is only one of many such strategies. Liberal pseudo-democracy is the strategy employed in the West, and in some third world countries (eg, Phillipines) when the oppressiveness of the fascist strategy threatens to bring about an autonomous, locally initiated, change of regime.
Theocracies (eg Iran) are another of the strategies. The Shah had faithfully played the fascist role, and when a popular rebellion threatened to bring in an autonomous local regime - most likely labor-socialist and non-aligned - the Ayatolla was dusted off in his Paris sanctuary, transformed by the global corporate media into a manufactured "peoples' choice", and installed by the US, France, and Britain just-in-time to prevent local autonomy of an unapproved variety.
Western rhetoric pretended to be disappointed when the Ayatolla turned out to be a tyrant, but in fact he serves Western interests perfectly, both as "someone to hate" - justifying military expenditures and all sorts of anti-Bill Of Rights, "anti-terrorist" legislation - and as a general destabilizing force in the Arab world. Fear of Arab solidarity has been a central driving force in Western Mideast policy since at least the end of WW I.
Destabilization and regional devololution is another general strategy for global capitalist dominance. In this case, the goal is to break a region down into smaller, more manageable chunks, as in Russia and Eastern Europe.
US/NATO policy in Yugoslavia, or in Iraq, it seems to me, must be examined primarily in terms of the strategies revealed.
The "threat" posed by Iraq was to become a model of Arab modernization - a model based on the reinvestment of oil profits to build a modern national infrastructure. Such a modernization model is contrary to the Western model for managing the Mideast, which seeks to keep the oil-producing states in a permanent state of medievalism. This is why Kuwait was encouraged to engage in provocative oil dumping, and why the US tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait.
That sequence of orchestrated events provided the pretext for the US military to go in and destroy Iraq's "unapproved" national infrastructure. The fact that Saddam is a dictator was of no strategic significance, except for its propaganda value. All the oil-producing states are dictatorships, mostly installed by the West, and any pretense that Saddam's style of government was a reason for Desert Storm is transparent hypocrisy. Protection of the Kurds was revealed as equally transparent hypocricy when the US invited Turkey to bomb the same Kurds which Saddam had threatened - but who had in the meantime been magically transformed by the corporate media, ala Orwell, into "terrorists".
In Yugloslavia, the strategy obviously being deployed is that of destablization and devolution. Local fascism has little strategic relevance to the situation - and most certainly US/NATO policy has never been organized around any intent to promote human rights in the region. By encouraging the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, by secretly providing arms to militant factions, and by preventing any useful attempts at negotiation or mediation, Western policies have led inevitably and predictably to what is being called, at the level of individual episodes, "ethnic cleansing".
In fact ehnic cleansing, at the macro level, is the precise aim of Western policy: the creation of several mini-nations, each of which has its own ethnic identity, and each of which is in conflict with its neighbors. This is a textbook example of Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" model for global capitalist domination.(16)
You may recall Dr. Huntington - he's the one who wrote the infamous "Crisis of Democracy" essay in 1973 which proclaimed that "something must be done" to reduce the "excess" democracy that had arisen in the sixties. His earlier words helped pave the way for Reagan-Thatcher reactionism, and his later words are now hearlding a shift in the global regime - to something the right-wingers like to call the "New World Order", and which, as will become clear below, could as well be called Global Fascism. More about that in a moment.
---
If one or the other local governments in the Balkans happens to be fascist, that has little relevance to Western policy. If any government there deserves to be painted with the fascist brush, Croatia would certainly be high on the list - and Croatia is being treated as a friendly ally by the West. It was Croatia which took the fascist side in WW II, and I recall reading a year or two back about a soccer match which was delayed so the Croatian fans could finish their enthusiastic round of Nazi songs. I'm not trying to shift any finger of blame from Serbia to Croatia - they are both ultimately victims in this scenario - I'm rather making the point that local fascism isn't strategically relevant to the situation. The more relevant strategic factors, I suggest, are -
(1) regional destabilization (2) framentation along Huntington's "civilization boundaries" (3) most of all - the establishment by de facto precedent of an end to territorial national sovereignty and its replacement by a pseudo-legitimized, capitalist-controlled, corporate-media celebrated, global military regime.
Thus, as we look deeper, fascism is indeed of primary relevance to what's going on in the Balkans - but at the global level, not the national.
At the national level, the hallmarks of fascism are police-suppression of populations and the delegation of economic affairs to capitalist interests.
At the global level, the US/NATO hi-tech military machine serves to suppress whole national populations at a time, in order that economic affairs can be more conveniently managed by global capitalism.
Far from promoting human rights and fighting fascism, the US/NATO actions amount to the consolidation of a global fascist regime - the military arm of globalization - the muscle that makes real the global sovereignty of those institutions which manage the global economy on behalf of their TNC constituency - the WTO, IMF, World Bank, OECD, WIPO, ad nauseum acronymium.
Human rights and human welfare, as we can see evidenced throughout the Third World, are of no concern to global capitalism. In the calculus of transnational "market forces", as interpreted by the almighty IMF, maximizing TNC profits is the only goal. Human welfare and human rights are not to interfere, even if that means mass starvation, which is precisely what it does mean.(17,18,19)
There's one more of capitalism's oft-used strategies which deserves mention in this regard, and that is genocide. In North America, Australia, and South Africa, to name three examples from the nineteenth century, wholesale genocide against indigenous peoples was the method used to clear the land for expansion of the capitalist system. It seems that some cultures don't domesticate well, from a capitalist perspective, and outright genocide is necessary to free up the land and resources being "wasted" by people who live "outside the cash economy". Local self-sufficiency is anathema to capitalism, as is economic sustainability. Both are fundamentally incompatible with what capitalism calls economic growth and development.
Sub-Sahara Africa is today's version of "Injun Territory" - a vast land occupied by semi-indigenous economies and peoples which aren't particularly productive from the perspective of global capitalism. Against the American "Injuns" the weapons were the US Cavalry, the destruction of the Bison herds, and media demonization of "savage heathens"; against the people of Sub-Sahara Africa the weapons are covertly-sponsored civil wars, the destruction of economies via IMF diktats, and media attribution of the genocidal civil wars to "primitive tribalism". The predictable consequence, now as in the US Old West, is publicly tolerated genocide on a continental scale.(17)
Of all the human rights - as enumerated by documents such as the US Delaration of Independence or the UN Delcaration of Human Rights - the one least respected of all by global capitalism is that of democratic self determination. Local autonomy, democratic or otherwise, is the ultimate deadly sin in the eyes of global capitalism. The mechanisms for preventing local autonomy, and for selling the prevention process to Western populations, have been steadily refined over at least the past three centuries, and are recently enjoing an unfortunate renaissance of demonic inventiveness - from free-trade treaties, to NATO blitzkrieg, to state-of-the-art wag-the-dog journalism.
Respectfully Yours, Richard K. Moore, Wexford, Ireland is a former software developer, lived in Ireland where is writing a book on globalization and moderates cyberjournal (http://cyberjournal.org) Copyright 1999 by Richard K. Moore, All Rights Reserved.
Recommended References (Please accept my apologies for not having at hand names of current publishers and other details for some of these references)
(1) George Seldes, "Facts and Fascism". (2) James Pool, "Who Financed Hitler", 1978, Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster, New York. (3) William Manchester, "The Arms of Krupp 1587-1968". (4) Charles Higham, "Trading with the Enemy". (5) Holly Sklar, ed, "Trilateralism", 1980, South End Press, Boston. (6) Zinn, Howard, "A Peoples History of the United States", 1980, Harper & Row, New York. (7) William Greider, "Who Will Tell the People, the Betrayal of American Democracy", 1992, Touchstone Press, Simon & Schuster, New York. (8) Lederer, William J, "A Nation of Sheep", 1962, Fawcett World Library, Crest Books, New York. (9) Michael Parenti, "Inventing Reality", 1993, St. Martin's Press, New York. (10) Parenti, "Make-Believe Media - The Politics of Entertainment", 1992, St. Martin's Press, New York. (11) Parenti, "The Sword and the Dollar - Imperialism, Revolution, and the Arms Race", 1989, St. Martin's Press, New York. (12) William Blum, "Killing Hope, U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II", 1995, Common Courage Press, Monroe Maine. (13) John Stockwell, "In Search of Enemies - A CIA Story". (14) David Horowitz, editor, "Containment and Revolution", Beacon Press, Boston, 1967, (15) John Bagguley, "The World War and the Cold War". (16) Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order", 1997, Simon and Schuster. (17) Michel Chossudovsky, "The Globalization of Poverty", 1997, Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia. (18) Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, ed, "The Case Against the Global Economy, and For a Turn Toward the Local", 1996, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. (19) Frances More Lappé, "World Hunger, Twelve Myths", 1986, Grove Press, New York.
Additional references:
Shoup and Minter: Imperial Brain Trust Bertram Gross: Friendly Fascism Covert Action Quarterly Christopher Simpson: The Splendid Blond Beast (US postwar use of fascist assets in Europe)Among the lies and hypocrisies which characterize media reportage on NATO's aggression against Serbia is the absurd notion that NATO is somehow "fighting fascism". Ironically, the exact opposite turns out to be the case.
The moment people in Central Europe have been waiting for has finally arrived. NATO jets are bombing the former Yugoslavia. Although it comes as no surprise, on all sides of the conflict people still shake their heads: Kosovo Albanians wonder why took so long for NATO to act; Serbs are reaffirmed in the belief that they have no friends and are victims of US neo-imperialism; meanwhile, neighboring countries nervously watch and pray that they won't get sucked into the conflict.
Unlike previous bombing assignments undertaken by NATO to enforce the "peace" (e.g., Bosnia and Iraq), support for this one within the region is minimal. Many Bosnians are actually opposed to the bombing, fearing that if Kosovo gets autonomy, Republika Srpska will get it, too. In other words, old wounds are being reopened before they have had a chance to heal.
While NATO points to its bombing mission in Bosnia as proof that iron-fisted diplomacy works, what they overlook is that their previous action in the Balkans came toward the end of the conflict. The Serbs were already in retreat, and all sides had already grown weary of the civil war. Moreover, in the end nothing really changed: the rival groups still live apart, and the hatred and animosity they hold for each other continues to run deep.
Many feel that NATO involvement at this stage is merely a way for the west to somehow save face. For a decade the economic embargo that was to bring Belgrade to its knees hasn't worked, and over the past year Milosevic has been calling NATO's bluff. And now that it is finally involved, it will have to find a way to disentangle.
This won't be easy. Unlike the US forays into Iraq, the terrain and objectives are much more difficult. Added to this is the fact that the US still hasn't achieve its true objective: Saddam Hussein is still in power, remaining a thorn in the side of the US.
Moreover, the Yugoslavian army is formidable. The Serbs have already mined all roads, bridges and tunnels that NATO forces could use to cross into Kosovo. Meanwhile, the downing of an American stealth fighter is but one indication that NATO has a more serious opponent this time, compared to the Bosnian conflict or the Gulf War. Indeed, there is the very real threat of NATO becoming bogged down in a protracted conflict.
This has already become apparent on the diplomatic front in the way the US administration is handling the affair. At a session on US policy in Balkans at the House Armed Services Committee, Walter Slocombe, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, used the magic words: "the situation in Kosovo is a threat to the national security interest of the US." This has some observers a little perplexed. Unlike the Gulf War, where the flow of oil was the primary objective, in Serbia the "national security interests of the US" aren't so obvious.
In many ways, Serbia has already dealt a tremendous blow to NATO-one that will be hard for the organization to overcome, even if the mission is successful. Neighboring countries that aspire to be members are beginning to wonder whether a NATO-imposed security arrangement will entail peace for the region after all. In Hungary, which has recently become an official member, popular support for the military alliance has dramatically dropped as fears surface about the country's possible involvement. In the meantime, preparations have been made for a flood of refugees, fueling resentment from a populace that sees the country more and more as a dumping ground and buffer zone for fortress Europe.
Not only has Milosevic succeeded somewhat in dampening NATO support within the region, but he has also strengthened his power base at home. Over the winter, while the Yugoslav army had time to prepare for a spring offensive (most astute observers knew it was coming last fall), the Serbian leadership took the opportunity to purge independent media and anti-government criticism.
The slight hope that somehow a democratic opposition would rise to topple the present government in Belgrade is clearly not being realized. The energy that had once brought the students to the streets has been nearly spent. There are several reasons for this. One is disillusionment. For some, what was to be the start of Serbia's belated transition to democracy has evaporated, in much the same way the pro-democracy movement in China faded to the background.
The student protests were based on internal political issues. In many ways, the present situation has a reverse, unifying effect, as people rally against a common enemy-the KLA and NATO. Most Serbs believe the Kosovo crisis to be an internal affair. What's more, they find the Rambouillet agreement humiliating, and refuse to be forced to surrender a piece of territory, which they believe is rightfully theirs, to foreign military forces. On top of this, they feel the west is hypocritical; the British in Northern Ireland are often cited as a prime example.
This doesn't mean that Serbia is a nation of blood-thirsty tyrants and that no independent opposition exists. However, those who would like to see a peaceful solution to the crisis-one that would even entail a certain amount of autonomy for Kosovo-don't believe that NATO dictates will help. Hence, these people are caught between a rock and a hard place: they are unable to effectively voice opposition to Milosevic when they aren't supportive of the western policy toward Kosovo either.
With the battle lines drawn and most western observers at a safe distance, it's very difficult to ascertain what exactly is happening in the area. Unfortunately, the promise of new media technology to provide the outside world with unadulterated information from Kosovo and vica-versa borders close to virtual reality. Because of the tight security, much of the news that comes out is not much different than what can be found in the mainstream media or government propaganda.
Nevertheless, some reports do make their way through. Balkansnet (http://www.balkansnet.org) provides substantial background information which far too often is generalized or overlooked by the mainstream media. On the other hand, this is mainly for western consumption since the economic resources to go online are unavailable for many Serbs -- not to mention most Kosovars. Part of this can be attributed to heavy handed tactics of Belgrade; the rest, to the ongoing economic blockade by the outside world.
Although online discourse is severely restricted, a certain amount of the Balkan conflict makes its way to the Internet. The politics behind the blood that flows in the former Yugoslavia often appears as digital polemics on various mailing lists. These are mainly conducted by ex-patriots living outside the region. Meanwhile, Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian hackers often trash the web sites of each other.
While attention is now focused on NATO action, what most don't realize is that the present crisis in Kosovo is not actually an end-game in itself, but sets the stage for the next real conflict in the Balkans. Kosovo has so far been a precursor to a much wider conflict looming in the horizon. After all, the whole breakup of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian civil war started with the suspension of Kosovo's status of autonomy within the federation.
Thus, the next area of potential conflict looks to be Montenegro, the only other republic to have remained within the rump Yugoslavia federation. Like the Bosnians, most Montenegrins oppose NATO military action. They also aren't supportive of the Kosovo Albanians. With a large Albanian minority of their own, they fear the emergence of Greater Albanian nationalism. This fear is shared by their neighbor to the south, Greece.
Montenegrans feel caught in a vice between Albanians and Serbs. Presently, the leadership in Montenegro and the Yugoslav Army are at war against each other. The Montenegrin government doesn't want to send its own people to fight and die in Kosovo for Serbian nationalism. Subsequently, the Montenegrin media treats the Yugoslav Army in the same way the Slovenian media treated them ten years ago.
It's a chilling reminder that history may be repeating itself. As one observer pointed out, it may only be a matter of time before the tanks roll out on the streets of Podgorica.
John Horvath writes regularly for TF from Eastern Europe.
