Apr. 19, 1995


"Partnership for Peace" - Modern-day Version of "Drang Nach Osten" Strategy

Taming the "Russian Bear"

Would 75 States Make the "Old Continent" Safer?

By Bob Djurdjevic

PHOENIX, Apr. 19, 1995 - Napoleon tried it. It didn’t work. Bismarck eventually also gave up on the idea. The German Kaiser and the Hapsburg emperor, as well as later Adolf Hitler, provoked two world wars in this century pursuing the "Drang Nach Osten" ("Eastward Push") goal. Having caused the suffering by millions of people, including their own, they also failed.rus-ring.gif (44632 bytes)

Yet, kicking Russia out of Europe is still the objective of the current U.S. developed, and Washington-Berlin executed strategy, thinly veiled under the "Partnership for Peace" slogan. It’s just that the modern version of the "Drang Nach Osten" power play isn’t a frontal assault - a mistake most of Russia’s adversaries had made in the past. It’s more akin to an "end around play," to borrow a football jargon. The "world’s only superpower" and its junior partner are using dollars and marks respectively, instead of bullets and bombs, to achieve the same goal - projecting their power deep into the soft underbelly of the former Russian empire. Already, no less than 18 former Russian dominions, have turned into American/German minions (see the map).

They have succumbed to the temptation of easy access to American or German aid and/or loans. In other words, they have been bought. The local politicians’ cover story for domestic consumption is that it was all done in pursuit of democracy and higher material living standards.

The preceding leaves the Serbs as the only non-vassal nation left in this part of the world. Their fierce determination to maintain their own sovereignty at all cost has infuriated the New World masters. Which is why the Serbs have been demonized beyond belief in the West, especially in the U.S. and Germany. And why this small nation of 10 million has been hit with the toughest sanctions in history.

Squeezing Yeltsin

You can now also add Boris Yeltsin to the line-up of "bought" East European politicians, and Russia to the list of the nations subjugated by the U.S. and German economic power. On April 12, 1995, the day the IMF finally approved his loan, Yeltsin set the price for "Mother Russia’s" sovereignty - a mere $7 billion! The amount seems like a bargain-basement price which may go down in history alongside some other major give-aways, such as the sale of Alaska by the Russians, or of today’s California-through-Texas territory by the Mexicans. russia.gif (6207 bytes)

The April 11, 1995 dismissal of the Russian General Perelyakin from the U.N. forces in the former Yugoslavia for alleged incompetence and connivance with the Serbs, only three weeks before his tour of duty was to end, added the pressure on Yeltsin to buckle under.

Since so many UNPROFOR personnel engage in illicit trade (this writer was told of that by eyewitnesses during his May and July 1994 visits to Bosnia and Serbia), the harsh treatment of the Russian was evidently supposed to send a message to Moscow as to who was boss in the world these days. And to put a squeeze on Yeltsin during the home stretch of the IMF negotiations.

So was the April 11, 1995 "stinging attack" on Russia by the State Dept. spokesman, Nicholas Burns, over Yeltsin’s handling of Chechnya. Burns was the National Security Council’s chief Soviet expert before being assigned to the State Dept. post.

Milosevic’s Swan Song?

The "sudden" revelations of the alleged involvement by the Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, in the planning of "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia also point to the possibility that the West (i.e., the U.S.) was trying to squeeze both Yeltsin and Milosevic at the same time. Roger Cohen’s story, which appeared April 13 on the front page of the NEW YORK TIMES, was undated (an unusual practice for the NEW YORK TIMES). The piece was shown to have been filed from Belgrade. Yet it was evident from another story in the same issue that its author was in Zagreb on April 12.

When confronted with this apparent contradiction, a NEW YORK TIMES editor admitted that the New York paper has known about the Milosevic’s Secret Service documents for some time (they were smuggled out of Serbia in October 1994!). But, "the NEW YORK TIMES never makes mistakes," the editor joked.

So why wait so long and then run the anti-Milosevic story now? When Yeltsin fell into line, while Milosevic again (on April 10) refused to recognize Bosnia and/or Croatia, the Serbian leaders’ posterior once again became exposed. He only had one card to play - the Russian support. Once that card was rendered worthless, Milosevic became expendable.

"Quo Vadis, Dominions?"

The above analysis would suggest that the White House, the State Dept., the National Security Council, but above all the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) who sent the key American foreign policy officials to Washington, devised and executed a brilliant strategy. They appear to have succeeded in what so many other world leaders in history have failed - taming the "Russian Bear."

A time for champagne and toasts among the Western (especially the U.S./ German) diplomats and politicians? Not so fast, I am afraid. Save the "bubbly" for happier occasions - family weddings or birthdays, for example. This one isn’t over yet. The "Russian Bear" may be hibernating, but is far from being tamed.

You see, the "brilliant" CFR heads and diplomatic geniuses who constructed the new (i.e., old) "Drang Nach Osten" wolf, and then clumsily tried to disguise it in the "Partnership for Peace" (sheep) clothing, neglected to heed the advice by that "mother of all schemers," Niccolo Machiavelli:

"There is nothing more difficult to plan,

More doubtful of success,

Nor more dangerous to manage,

Than a creation of a new order of things."

(from the "Prince", 1513)

A modern-day scientist offered a similar warning:

"There is no problem, however complex, which,

If examined with patience and intelligence,

Will not become - more complex!"

The taming of the "Russian Bear" qualifies as one such complex problem.

What If...?

The CFR/NSC/State Dept. and other U.S. foreign policy "whiz-kids" should have also considered less than optimal scenarios - which is what the present situation is. As long as Yeltsin stays in power, the current U.S. foreign policy appears golden. But Yeltsin’s tenure is highly suspect. The head of a large British bank, and a top international executive of a large U.S. multinational company both privately expressed their conviction last Fall that Yeltsin’s days as the head of the Russian state are numbered. And this was before Chechnya and his other more recent domestic problems!

But it isn’t the domestic situation which may cause Yeltsin’s downfall. It is his foreign policy handling, more specifically the Balkans situation, that may topple him.

Let’s examine the current options from the viewpoint of the Bosnian or the Krajina Serbs. Right now, they are completely surrounded by enemies. Even their own brethren (i.e., Milosevic’s government) have turned against them, in a silly and naive notion that their betrayal of their own people would win them a pardon from the world’s would-be rulers. In other words, the "Western Serbs" have been backed into a corner by the New World masters.

Now, what choices does a nature’s creature have in such a predicament? Take a raccoon, for example. Normally a relatively docile and domesticated animal, he fights viciously for its life when cornered like that.

Yet, the Serbs are neither docile nor "domesticated." They had fought the Turkish invaders for 500 years before finally throwing off the Ottoman choke collar. No wonder the Austrian throne had given the Krajina Serbs a privileged status, rather than fight them. As long as they helped defend the empire’s borders against the Muslim threat, they could have their autonomy for all practical purposes.

But in the end, the Serbs also helped bury the Austro-Hungarian and the German empires when those turn of the century hopeful "World Masters" tried to put them on a short leash. And they snubbed Hitler in 1941, at the time when the entire world was quaking in its boots before the renewed German might.

Nor was such an intestinal fortitude cheap. The Serbs paid dearly for their stubborn devotion to freedom. More than a million of them perished in World War II alone, most in today’s Bosnia and Croatia.

History teaches us, therefore, that the Serbian territories in the Balkans have been a graveyard of empires.

I only mention these historical facts to illustrate the high risks which our New World Order architects took when they chose to back a nation like that into a corner. I wonder if "Clinton et. al." - at all considered what it would be like if the Bosnian and the Krajina Serbs finally decided to fight back - no holds barred?

To begin with, they could take many UNPROFOR soldiers as hostages in a matter of days. And they could kill others who choose to resist. Once the Western Serbs realize that this is not a fair fight; that their real enemies aren’t the Muslims or the Croats, but the U.S. and Germany (hiding behind the U.N. cloak); there is no telling what damage they could cause. If dying is in the cards, they may reason, why not die fighting like a man rather than slowly bleed to death like a stuck pig?

If that happens, the next thing you know, NATO may get involved - ostensibly to "rescue the U.N. hostages." Hasn’t our President (Clinton) already promised that he would send 20,000 U.S. troops, if necessary, to extricate the U.N. forces from Bosnia or Croatia?

America went through some real convulsions over the fate of its 50 hostages in Teheran in 1980, and over the dozen or so of our soldiers killed in Somalia in October 1993. So just think what the reaction would be to seeing hundreds or thousands of American troops brought home in body bags from Bosnia or Croatia? How would President Clinton, Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich explain to the families of the fallen soldiers why they had died?

In pursuit of the U.S. "Drang Nach Osten" strategy?

Nah... That wouldn’t sell. Most Americans don’t understand foreign phrases. It took us five years to learn what "perestroika" was, and less than one to forget it.

So how about as a sacrifice for the "Partnership for Peace" cause?

No, again! Half of us wouldn’t know what that meant, either. But seeing our erstwhile "peace partners" fight us in the Balkans would remind America of the double talk with which our government sent our troops into battle for Kuwait’s oil, for example, or into Vietnam.

Such a gap in understanding and trust between ordinary Americans and our policy-making elite is what happens when the country’s foreign affairs are conducted by a small group of people who talk to each other using slogans.

So how about, Americans died in the Balkans as a part of the "Contract with America?" Everybody’s heard about that, right?

Right. Except that when this writer went to Washington last January to put his own initial on the "Contract with America," he discovered that nearly all members of Arizona’s congressional delegation were too busy voting "for us" to have time to find out how we would want them to vote. So why should America expect the unelected officials, such as Tony Lake or Warren Christopher, for example, to care more about what the people think?

Vietnam Remorse Reappears

It is a terrible irony that the issue of needless loss of American lives should be again raised at a time when the former U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, one of the architects of our ill-fated foreign policy in the 1960s, has just admitted in his book about the Vietnam war that, "we were wrong, terribly wrong." The error cost our country some 58,000 lives, and led to the first-ever U.S. military defeat. Nor should one ignore, as is so often the case in the American media, the three million Vietnamese who also perished in "McNamara’s war." They may not have been the U.S. taxpayers or voters, but they most certainly were human beings.

One would think, therefore, that McNamara and others of his ilk in government, should have ended up in electric chairs or gas chambers, just as the common mass murderers do.

Think again...

This is America, not Disneyland...

The fairy tales about justice and fairness may work in Saturday morning cartoons, but they rarely, if ever, apply to high-level people.

As a banker, McNamara must have known that. Remember what they say about banking:

"If you owe a bank $1 million - the bank controls you;

But if you owe a bank $1 billion - you control the bank."

So, being a high-roller himself, McNamara must have figured that he could get away with murder. Make it a "mega murder!" All it would take to get him off the hook was his "oops..., we made a mistake" admission.

Guess what? He could be right...

Those who were hurt most seem to be the first to forgive. "The title of his book should be ‘Sorry ‘Bout That,’" said Max Cleland, Georgia’s Secretary of State, who lost both legs in Vietnam.

Yet, didn’t the mortally sick Ali McGraw say in the 1971 hit movie, "Love Story," that "loving someone meant never having to say ‘I’m sorry’?" If her logic were extended to McNamara, doesn’t his having to apologize to America mean that maybe he never loved the country?

But even Cleland’s forgiving did not mean forgetting. "McNamara went to (head up) the World Bank, while a lot of other people went to their graves," the Georgia state official also told the New York Times.

Others, (even) including the Arizona Senator, John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, (and certainly no 'war hero' as his bio suggests) were far less benevolent toward McNamara.

Justice will only be served when people like the former DOD secretary, a long-time CFR member, and those who put him in a position of power, such as the late and oft-revered U.S. presidents, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy, are put in the dustbin of history. The belated apology was nothing more than McNamara’s effort to buy a one-way ticket through the Pearly Gates at a late stage of his life (78).

Fortunately, St. Peter may not be selling. And America isn’t buying it...

Same Old CFR Cronies...

I only bring up this Vietnam-era incident to help us appreciate that it is the people of the same level of (in)competence (i.e., the CFR members such as Bill Clinton, Tony Lake, Warren Christopher and others), that are making similar "life and death" decisions about our kids’ lives today. Such as the "Drang Nach Osten," strategy, for example.

Why should we trust them to be smarter or more honest than were others of their ilk 30 years ago? I, for one, cannot help but wonder how many American lives or Vietnam-like black wall memorials will it take to get these officials finally to repent and stop playing God?

Bringing Russians Into War

Meanwhile, as pointed out earlier, Clinton’s short-sighted strategy vis--vis the Serbs may well end up backfiring - in our Russian policy! For, if NATO intervenes in Bosnia, regardless of its pretext, couldn’t that spell the end of Yeltsin, and bring the Russian military into the Balkan conflict, too? Rather than try to sweep the issue under the rug, as Yeltsin appears to be ready to do, the Russian military and the opposition leaders may decide that it’s time to play hardball again. Enter "Cold War II?"

And suppose they also re-aim their nukes at us. Enter "World War III?"

What would then the esteemed ladies and gentlemen of the CFR advise Bill Clinton to do? Cut and run as he did in Vietnam years? Or go to war with his "peace partner?" Or just go home, to Arkansas?

Not a pretty set of choices, is it? And so, Signor Machiavelli would probably again have the last laugh. Or a good cry...

For, with foreign policy leaders like the CFR bunch, only God can help America. If He chooses to. Which He may not. And who could blame Him?

A Way Out: "United States of Europe?

So is there a way out of our current foreign policy quagmire in Europe? Is there also a solution to increased strife world over? Yes, there is, if you ask Prof. A.H. Heineken, of the Amsterdam-based "Stichting voor de Historische Wetenschap" (Historical Research Institute). Dusting off some old political ideas, and then polishing them up to fit the present situation, Prof. Heineken proposed a "United States of Europe." us of eur.jpg (29786 bytes)

According to his plan, Europe’s 350 million inhabitants would live in 75 independent states, each with a population of about five to 10 million.

Why the five-to-10 million limit?

"Because where the population exceeds 10 million, there is a manifest case for decentralization," concluded the British Prof. C. Northcote Parkinson, in a 1970 report. In other words, it’s a matter of efficiency of government. "A state of 30 to 50 million is hopelessly inefficient," Prof. Heineken concurred.

But both Heineken and Parkinson drew upon the ideas of an Austrian sociologist. Leopold Kohr expressed similar thoughts in his book, "The Breakdown of Nations," published in 1957. That’s right - 1957, not 1975! He wrote that, "it is always bigness, and only bigness, which is the problem of existence - social, as well as physical." Kohr concluded that the only solution must lie in cutting down of the substances and organisms which have outgrown their natural limits."

Without realizing the foregoing, this writer also argued in a 1991 report that bigness in business has become a liability rather than an advantage. And he compared a successful modern services business enterprise to an amoeba - which splits up before becoming too big (and, therefore, inefficient).

So, why has Europe been so slow to adopt a good thing? One might speculate that it’s because Europeans are wedded to traditions, and are slow to change. After all, the region has not earned its nick-name, the "Old Continent," for nothing, has it?

But that would be a rather shallow explanation. Prof. Heineken points out that the German or Italian states, for example, never existed before the second half of the 19th century. In other words, they are younger than even the U.S.! Furthermore, at the time of the French revolution (1789), the majority of the population did not even speak French, and was "not able to sing the ‘Marseillaise,’ the newly-minted national anthem," argues Prof. Heineken. It was only at the end of the 19th century that the French peasants became "Frenchmen."

In other words, the whole notion of statehood and nationality is an industrial era invention. It is not natural! And it cannot last in its present form!

Yet, the main reason that the Heineken proposal won’t work is because it runs against another law of nature - the survival of the fittest, which Charles Darwin so eloquently explained - also in the last century.

Why would Europe’s most powerful countries, such as Germany, France, Britain or Italy, for example, volunteer to be split up into five or more weaker entities? Can you really see the Greeks giving up their northern territories to a new state called Macedonia, after having kicked so much fuss over the mere use of the name by the former Yugoslav republic? What are the chances of the "incorrigible Serbs" ceding Kosovo, the cradle of their civilization, to Albania, while leaving their Western Serb brethren in belligerent states called Croatia and Bosnia? Why would the Romanian leaders agree to have their country broken up into three pieces while seeing that Hungary, remains intact?

The answers to the above questions are "no," "no," "slim to none," and "beats me." As the Serbian general, Ratko Mladic once said, "borders are drawn in blood," i.e., not by some academicians’ or diplomats’ pens.

So, Heineken’s ideas are not perfect. To his credit, even the author called them "a Eurotopia?" (i.e., a European utopia). Which suggests that he was not drinking the brew which made his Dutch namesake famous when he put the proposal together.

But there is no question that such a Europe, with its borders modified in blood or otherwise to correct some of the above anomalies would be a safer place than is the current "Old Continent." "It may be wiser to accept these developments (toward decentralization and independence) than to work against them," suggested Prof. Heineken.

From "Eurotopia" to Reality

So what would it take to make it a reality? In three words, it would be a "World War III." Just as the United Nations idea emerged from the ruins of the World War II, it would take an event of cataclysmic proportion, such as another world war, to force the formerly dominant species to cede some power to the weaker ones. And, as Darwin would have probably agreed, they would do it out of fear, not as a charity gesture.

If the above analysis proves accurate, it would probably spell the end of the world as we know it. But not the end of the world. For, did you ever observe what happens after a fire or an avalanche had wreaked havoc in a forest? What follows is - life! And it is a life richer and fuller than the one which the cataclysm had destroyed.

So, the real challenge which each member of the human race faces these days is the same as that of a pine tree in a forest: How does one mutate from a tall and proud pine into a tiny fireweed?

One doesn’t, of course. Except by fire or an avalanche. (Like WW III?).


Bob Djurdjevic is a Phoenix-based businessman and writer.

Back to Index of Columns...