The Balkans war: a symposium

Boris Kagarlitsky

Boris Kagarlitsky was jailed under Brezhnev for work on an oppositional journal. He is an author and socialist activist living in Moscow.

I think you may have a false view of opposition to NATO's bombing here in Russia. The Western media portrays Russians as pro-Slavic, pro-Serb, pro-Orthodox. But the opinion polls here suggest that the people do not give a damn about the Serbs or the Orthodox church. What there is is an anti-Americanism. This anti-NATO feeling has developed from a very strong anti-American current that has grown-up here duing the last ten years.

How do you see the issue, both personally and as a representative of the left?

Prime Minister Zyuganov shares a kind of geopolitical attitude - that is, the West is moving closer to Russia, NATO forces are moving closer to Russian borders. This poses a direct threat to Russia; Russia has to resist. One possible way to resist is to back the Serbs, who are fighting the West. From this point of view, of course, the question of Milosevic and the Albanians looks like an irrelevance.

This is the popular feeling as well. Ordinary people say: of course we have sympathy for the Albanians, but it doesn't matter. Because they also know that during the Soviet war against the Nazis, there was a lot of repression against small peoples, but that did not change the nature of the war. If you are fighting a defensive war against aggression, the nature of a bad or repressive regime does not change the nature of the war.

On the left, the position is more complex. There is a debate going on about Milosevic and his regime. Different views are expressed. Some, from a traditionalist, or crypto-Stalinist background, view Milosevic as defending the remains of what they understood to be the old socialist Yugoslavia. Others, on the contrary, insist that Milosevic is corrupt and that his regime has nothing at all to do with socialism. This wing is very negative about Milosevic's policy in Kosova and Serbia. However, they also insist that NATO has strengthened Milosevic's control inside Serbia and increased the repression in Kosova against the ethnic Albanians (in other words, giving the ethnic cleansing a sort of "justification"). This wing believes that even from a narrow humanitarian approach, NATO's actions are counterproductive.

In my view, I think the issue is not about whether NATO's actions are counterproductive or not. The question is: was anything positive or humanitarian ever desired by the NATO powers? I think not. They never had any serious desire to protect the ethnic Albanians. If you read the Rambouillet agreement, you will find that the agreement deals with the rights of NATO in Kosova and in Yugoslavia, not with the rights of the Kosovars. NATO is fighting an aggressive war.

And the way they have handled this war shows that they do not give a damn about the Kosovars. Their bombing has turned the whole area into a disaster zone. They have also created a situation where the refugees will not be able to return even if the West wins the war - because this area is so devastated. Pushing people back will be as criminal as pushing them out.

What do think the West's policy is?

They do not want to invade, not because they do not want to control Serbia militarily, but because they will lose too much hardware and too many troops. And in the long run they fear loosing the ground war. The West seems more powerful than it actually is.

What should the left say about the Kosovars? We cannot accept what has happened to these people.

Of course we should not accept what has happened to them. But the question is: once this disaster has happened, what should be done next?

The Serb police have behaved like pigs in Kosova for years. And they created the preconditions for rebellion. While I do not think that the KLA is an organisation for the left to support, this does not matter, because if you are a young Albanian in Kosova, and you have no job, and you face Serb police repression, everyday, on the streets, you will join the KLA. And this is despite the fact that the KLA is probably not much better.

But the West is not interested in the plight of the Albanians at all. It will not put the refugees back, not even if they win. And the degree of ecological and social devastation means that they should not be put back there.

Ironically the right policy now is not to deal with moving people back but, rather, how to help the refugees in a new life. The West started the war, and now the West will have to accept about two million refugees.

So the left should accept the result of what Milosevic has done?

Yes. We have to. And I'm sure most of them do not want to return. The West is as guilty as Milosevic. Not accepting this means Western intellectuals do not understand that if you face such a war from the Serbian side there are only two ways to deal with Kosova: push the people out or to kill thousands and thousands of people in Kosova to stop a guerrilla war. The West pushed the KLA - not much militarily, but politically it pushed - to expand its operations. The KLA anticipated Western help.

Once the war starts, what are the military options available to the Serbs? If the population is still present, they are very hostile. If the people remain thousands will die to stop the rebellion. The other option is ethnic cleansing. It is awful but at least many remain alive. Both options are the results of the criminal policy of the Serb regime. But in the circumstances they have opted for a "lesser evil".

On the West's side, it has opted for the worst evil. They bomb from such a height because they are afraid to risk the lives of their pilots. They do not effectively hit military targets; instead they hit towns and economic targets.

What should the left demand? Some sort of autonomy for the area; the right to return must be guaranteed (whether we push them to return is another matter); the right to move elsewhere if they choose.

Why do you say "autonomy" rather than independence?

I'll tell you why. The Serbs are not colonisers here. They have been on this land for many hundreds of years. The ethnic balance in favour of the ethnic Albanians has shifted dramatically only in the last 20 years. It is a question of one generation. Before that the balance was 60% Albanian to 40% Serbian. Now it is 85% Albanian to 10% Serb.

This shift is a consequence of two factors: economic depression in Kosova itself led to Serb emigration. The Serbs were better educated and in a better position to get jobs elsewhere in Yugoslavia where they perhaps had relatives and spoke the language.

Secondly, Albanians moved to Kosova from Albania, which was even more impoverished than Kosova itself.

And also Serbs say that the policy of the ethnic Albanian leadership, in the pre-Milosevic period, favoured Albanians and pushed Serbs out. That could be true; we have seen such things elsewhere.

So, then, in the long run, the only solution is a Balkan federation. Some non-ethnic federation.

Anyway, in the shorter term an independent Kosova will not be viable.

There are three possible options: it could be taken over by Albania (even if not formally, in name) which would be no better than being ruled by Serbs. Why should I support this?

Second option: the Serbs keep it, but are unable to control it in the same way in which they have been doing. This means some sort of self-government.

Thirdly: a NATO protectorate. A formally independent state, with everything being done by NATO. That would be a real problem for the other peoples of the region. I'm sure that the Kosovars do not want a NATO-occupied state - but that is the only meaning of "independence".

Bruce Kent

Bruce Kent is a former Catholic bishop and a well-known British peace activist.

I have opposed the bombing for a number of reasons. The world community has, with great difficulty, built a structure, the United Nations, which has certain laws and rules to deal with aggression or cruelty. These provisions have been totally ignored. The major military bloc which survives has taken the law into its own hands. This initiative is immensely damaging and destructive of the whole rule of law.

I am totally opposed to the bombing of Yugoslavia. It is criminal. It is a violation of both NATO's own charter and of the UN's charter, which states that Britain will not use force against other countries except within the framework of the UN.

Moreover, if NATO was acting outside the UN and doing something which actually worked, there might be a case for acting. But everything, absolutely everything, has been made worse by their actions. They have accelerated the expulsion of refugees to an enormous degree, they have ruined relations with Russia, they have destabilised a number of countries in the region, they have spent $100 billion so far in military costs and future reparations - so I can see no good coming out of the bombing.

What would you say about the issue of the Kosovars? The Stop the Bombing campaign solely concentrates on what the NATO governments are doing. What about the other side of the war, the war against the Kosovars?

Every time I have spoken against the bombing I have also criticised Milosevic's treatment of the Kosovars. But no matter what I believe should happen to Milosevic, it has nothing to do with what NATO is now doing. NATO is making matters worse.

What would I do? The number of monitors on the ground should have been increased, rather than beginning bombing. All the evidence suggests that although the Albanians of Kosovo were very badly marginalised and oppressed before the bombing, that was nothing like what has happened to them since the bombing started. We should have backed the democratic opposition to Milosevic in Belgrade, and that we did not do.

What about the democratic movement in Kosova itself? One criticism of the British government is that it is fighting for the Ramboulliet agreement. And Ramboulliet is pitiful: it offers the Kosovars far less than they demand, which is independence.

I'm not a big supporter of movements for independence - it is a flag under which a lot of people get killed. We live in an interdependent world, and independence is largely an illusion - anywhere, not just in Kosova. No country is really independent.

If a large number of people in Kosovo want autonomy or independence, fine. But such rules should be applied consistently across the world: would this rule apply equally to the Basques, the Kurds?

Yes, these groups should have the right to self-determination too...

Of course, after what has happened, the Kosovars are entitled to some sort of separation from Serbia. But under what form? Under a Balkan federation? As part of the EU? I really do not know... But their desire now, and the Serb action against them, is very much to do with the actions of the KLA. And who is funding the KLA? Perhaps one day we will find out.

No doubt, all guerrilla armies get money and support from wherever they can. Look at the Kurdish group, the PKK. They have had political support from Greece. Their money comes from wherever they can get it. Politically they are awful. Does this mean the Kurds do not have the right to freedom and independence? Of course not. The same principles apply to the KLA and the Kosovars.

In the world today we are interdependent. Independence in an absolute sense does not work. But autonomy does. That's what we have in Britain where we are governed by all sorts of laws and regulations and rules which emanate from outside.

Not for one moment am I suggesting that the Kosovars should be under the iron heel of the Serbs, or anyone else!

But, so often, the cry for independence is a cry for blood, because it implies civil war. I simply believe that we need to find ways of living together.

Finally, why do you believe that bombing has started at this particular point?

Why it started? Well, why did we unravel Yugoslavia as fast as we did? What were the interests of the Germans in recognising Croatia? Why is Tudjman not indicted as a war criminal alongside Milosevic? There are a lot of conspiracy theories flying around. But perhaps NATO did not want a non-NATO and hostile state within new NATO borders.

The point about Germany seems a bit off beam: Germany did not recognise Croatia until December 1991, well into the Serb-Croat war.

If there is to be recognition of a sovereign state there must be guarantees on human rights and democratic structures. There should have been international discussion. None of this happened. The recognition was impulsive.

Wasn't the trigger for the bombing that Milosevic was stepping up the ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians and that the West was worried that new waves of refugees would destabilise the artificial state of Macedonia and also Albania? They did not want this war. And for many years Milosevic had been someone the west could do business with.

Yes, Rambouillet did not envisage independence. And interestingly it talked about the "principles of the free market" applying in Kosova. What was intended here - a little capitalist outpost?

And Rambouillet also proposed the absolute autonomy of NATO troops in Serbia. No country in the world would have accepted such a thing. So, why did the West put such demands on Serbia, demands they knew would fail? You talk about expulsions, and I am no expert. It is true, clearly, that the Kosovars were treated as second class citizens. However, that is a different matter to mass expulsions.

And I have seen a German Foreign Office document which says, yes, there was pressures on the Kosovars, but that there were no mass expulsions before the bombings.

Daniel Singer

Daniel Singer is a veteran of the French socialist movement, author of Whose Millenium? Theirs or Ours?; Is Socialism Doomed? the Meaning of Mitterand; The Road to Gdansk; and Prelude to Revolution. He is a contributor to Le Monde and The Nation.

By now it is quite clear that the US are attempting to institutionalise American hegemony - first in Europe, then in the world at large. What is at stake in this, latest, confrontation is no longer the Kosovars or the lives of Serbs, but the "credibility of NATO". The US, through NATO, is attempting to become the prosecutor, judge and executioner, deciding who can get away with murder and who should be pursued. Politically, this can become very important.

However, when attacking American bombing, we have to be very careful to distinguish ourselves from Milosevic and ethnic cleansing. We must declare a plague on both their houses.

What is being presented by Clinton and Blair is the idea that NATO is fighting for democracy and equal rights. We must insist that universal laws - which the world is crying out for - cannot be based on double standards. Laws which say one thing for the Kurds and one thing for the Kosovars are not universal. And I can not imagine an international organisation dominated, necessarily, by the US threatening a Nethanhyu with missiles for refusing to grant the Palestinians' national rights.

You declare a straightforward plague on both houses. But to what extent is that idea applicable, without qualification? Milosevic has killed far more people. His aim is to destroy Kosova as a society. NATO is attempting to bomb Milosevic into a deal, that is true. And that deal, something similar to Rambouillet, is pitiful.

Isn't Milosevic's imperialism the worst imperialism here?

No. First we must destroy the moral case of the bombers. We must stop them invoking the Holocaust and using the Holocaust as a weapon to paralyse opposition to what they are doing. We must then admit that we are in no position to impose our own solutions.

If you wish to argue along the following lines: "a woman is being raped; you are in no position to act; we should call the policeman, even though we know the policeman to be brutal and corrupt," I would reply: yes, but only on the condition that we believe the policeman will not make matters worse. NATO's intervention in Kosova has been a disaster on three grounds. It has propped up Milosevic and not brought him down; it has weakened all those in the region who are for class solidarity and potentially on our side - these people say they have been swept aside by the nationalist tide in the wake of the bombing; the conditions for the Kosovars have become 10 times worse since the bombing began, despite the fact that Milosevic was preparing some drive against them.

So, yes, I favour punishment for Milosevic. But I refuse to single out Milosevic. I insist that if a judgement is to be made it should be made on Tudjman, the President of Croatia, for similar crimes, even if they were carried out on a smaller scale. And I will not accept the judgements of people who will not judge impartially. And NATO leaders declare Saddam and Milosevic as evil while Suharto and Somoza are members of the "democratic family".

I sense in your attitude that you want to accept that NATO is acting in the interests of human rights. If that is your purpose, you will not have me on your side.

Well of course I oppose NATO. But I do not see NATO and Milosevic as equivalents with equal weight. I am for the Kosovars. And it is Serb imperialism that is responsible for the ethnic cleansing. The Serbs have a Kosova colony, not NATO. Let's discuss the issues. Some of your arguments can be turned round and used as part of a case for ground troops to protect the Kosovars.

If I was assuming NATO's intervention was being carried out for humanitarian reasons that might follow. But I do not. The greatest danger we have to recognise is that under the disguise of humanitarianism something extremely dangerous is being prepared: the institutionalising of the right of intervention. And this will be carried out against socialists, not just Milosevic's regime.

It is quite true that the world is crying out for a defence mechanism against this sort of situation. But the system which is being designed is to be used to protect the existing society. As socialists we cannot accept that, because we know about the implied dangers.

It is interesting that you mention the Holocaust. In Britain some of the anti-NATO left is attacking the idea that Milosevic is perpetrating a Holocaust in such a way as to talk down and minimise Milosevic's crimes.

I consider that the Holocaust is at once unique and comparable. That is to say, it is unique in its scientific horror and it is a reminder to us all about the levels people can stoop to. In principle, I am not opposed to comparisons.

However, the parallel is being used cynically to paralyse the opposition to the bombing. It is being used to discredit any critic of the "just war" that is being waged. And the equation of Milosevic and Hitler is sheer absurdity. The Kosovars deserve our greatest sympathy and support. But the parallel between what has happened to them and what happened to the Jews is indecent and immoral. It is so, especially, because the reason this parallel is being made is purely cynical. Blair and Clinton want to portray their opponents as pro-Nazi. I have contempt for all those who use this argument to score political points.

I know what I am talking about. I am a deserter from death. I should not have been here: had I stayed, as a small child in Poland, my chances of survival were one in a thousand.

No matter what has happened to the Kosovars, what has happened to them is not comparable to the Holocaust. Equally, if, as you say, opponents of the bombing are minimising the scale of the ethnic cleansing, they discredit themselves.

Discussing the idea of developing a "third camp" in the area: clearly we need to make propaganda for workers' unity and internationalism. However the "active" part of the third camp here is the Kosovars and their struggle against Serb forces. What is your attitude to this aspect of the war?

At this stage we have almost reached the point where there are no good solutions. As socialists we must examine our own guilt in this story - in the break up and collapse of Yugoslavia and the triumph of jingoism over class solidarity and universal principles. Now, after the poison has spread so far, after so much suffering has taken place and so much hatred exists, some sort of separation is inevitable. Unfortunately any sort of "solution" will inevitably accept elements of ethnic cleansing.

We need to re-examine many basic questions. For example, the principle of self-determination. Where does it start? Where does it stop? Self-determination for whom? Only in national frontiers? Why is it right for the Croatians and not for the Serbs of the Krajina? These issues must be debated.

But in Kosova, now, the problem for me is to stop the war, to allow the Kosovars to return and wounds to heal. At some point in the future we will emerge from ethnic politics towards socialist politics: class solidarity not ethnicity!

But, now, the cornerstone of any socialist policy is an unambiguous answer to the question: who should rule in Kosova?

I do not know if this is the basic principle here. There may be class considerations. In every concrete situation, socialists must ask themselves: what is the best way forward? What is the best way to allow our type of politics to revive? How do we go beyond ethnicity? You have attempted to keep me in an area where I have to choose between competing national rights. That is not my main pre-occupation. Perhaps some form of autonomy is best at this stage. But my consideration is simply to find the best way for Serbs and Kosovars to live together, if that is possible at all.

In the long run I would like to see some new Yugoslavia where the people are not divided on ethnic grounds, and the basic division is between the people who work and their exploiters.

Tam Dalyell

Tam Dalyell is Labour MP for Linlithgow.

You have been a prominent opponent of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Could you explain why you've taken up this issue?

Firstly, I thought that it was stupid to the point of wickedness to start bombing in the knowledge that you neither had the willingness nor the capacity to protect those on whose behalf you were purporting to act. This bombing campaign was begun by people who knew that they were unable to protect the refugees.

They said that President Milosevic was a tyrant. If they knew this, why were they so stupid as not to foresee that this is exactly what would happen?

A lot of people have used these arguments to support the calls for a ground war...

Now look, if they had put ground troops in place, at an early stage, that would have been a different matter. I would not have supported it, but that would have been a different matter entirely.

But secondly, I think the Serbs have half a case.

Why do you say this?

No-one disputes that Kosova was part of Serbia. When I was in Bosnia, I was told: Kosova is different; Kosova is the cradle of Serb civilisation. Moreover, I am told, and believe, that a lot of the trouble has been stirred up by people who are not from Kosova at all, but who are from Albania - the odious lieutenants of Enver Hoxha.

Do you mean the KLA? But the KLA is a mass movement of Kosovars.

Yes, quite right, I mean the KLA. The KLA have quite ruthlessly murdered police officers with the precise intention of provoking retribution, so they could call in NATO.

The big majority of Kosovars are ethnic Albanians...

Well, they are now.

You say it is a "cradle of Serb civilisation", and it is true that Serb nationalists have a particular attachment to the area. But what about the people who actually live there?

That is a judgement you are entitled to make. But there are 52,000 ethnic Albanians living in Belgrade. This is not a simple Serb-Albanian problem.

They want independence, and so it is their democratic right to have independence. How do you think the question of the rights of the Kosovars should be resolved?

I would advocate: Stop the bombing! I would say to you that the great need to do something does not mean that you should do something silly! I think bombing is counterproductive. I am a great dove and believe that there is no substitute for aid to Macedonia and poverty-stricken Albania.

Obviously there should be aid to Albania and Macedonia. But what would you say to people who say: what do you think should be done about the Kosovars?

In a civil way I would say: do you want the consequences of a land war?

You haven't answered the question. But in reply to yours: I don't support NATO; Workers' Liberty is not calling on them to start a land war. But the idea that NATO is the biggest problem here is quite wrong. The main enemy is Milosevic's regime, not NATO.

Yes, Milosevic's regime is terrible. But there are a lot of terrible regimes around the world. What's the answer - bombing against every country where there is a terrible regime? There are a set of horrible alternatives here. All I am advocating is what I understand is the least horrible.

How would you reply to a critic who complained that "Stop the bombing" is one-sided - it tells "our" government to stop bombing, but says nothing about what Milosevic is doing to the Kosovars? "Stop the bombing" is also Milosevic's slogan - he also wants the bombing to end and for a free hand in Kosova.

Well, you may think this reply is a little limp, but what the bombing has done is to extinguish the chances of the anti-Milosevic opposition, which was coming along quite nicely up until the start of the bombing of Yugoslavia. When a country is bombed, the people rally round. In World War Two, the people of London did. The people of Hamburg and Dresden did too. If you are bombed, you turn all anger on the people who are doing the bombing.

Hillel Ticktin

Hillel Ticktin is a lecturer at Glasgow University and editor of the journal Critique.

The West has gone into Yugoslavia and the region in order to preserve the global order. I don't think it has gone into assist the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia, or the Albanian majority in Kosova. I think they were afraid that if Milosevic was allowed to continue, there would be war between the various ethnic groups and countries in the region. That war would threaten the global order. They were looking to preserve the area for capital.

What about Milosevic and his war aims?

I think Milosevic was a pragmatic member of the Stalinist elite of the former Yugoslavia who saw the only salvation in turning to nationalism.

They found themselves threatened by the working class at a certain point, or potentially threatened by it. There were a large number of strikes, a declining standard of living. They turned to this form of rule. That led automatically to the various sectors of the elite splintering in conditions where the Stalinist economy was splintering. What Milosevic did was to preserve the elite, but he has done this in a way that he did not understand. That is: it has been preserved in isolated national forms, including his own elite. Of course what he intended was to preserve Yugoslavia.

What is he fighting for now?

He is still fighting for that elite, the elite in Serbia. If he did not fight, he would be overthrown. He is threatened by the working class and also by other sections of the elite. He is virtually compelled to continue in this way. He is stuck with the logic of his situation.

A lot of the left believe that West had an interest in the break-up of the old Yugoslav state, pointing, as proof, to the recognition of Croatia by Germany at the end of 1991. Do you believe this is true?

I don't agree with this. I think Yugoslavia was breaking up anyway. At the time, Bush, the President of the United States, was opposed to it breaking up because, from his point of view, it is easier to maintain order in Yugoslavia if it is in one piece.

I was there during the break-up, in the middle of 1991. As far as I could see many of those involved, including people around Milosevic, did not expect what actually came.

The recognition of Croatia? I think that the break up was happening anyway. It is true that Germany's recognition of Croatia made it easier, but that is as far as it is possible to go. I don't think it is true that imperialism wanted the break-up. Moreover, it is not even possible to talk of imperialism in this way.

Why?

I don't think this is an issue where external powers are trying to establish finance capital in that region or external powers were trying to establish a form of tribute in that region. That might happen over time, but in the first instance they were interested in the transformation of the region towards capitalism. That is as far as it went.

More recently: the Western powers seem to have thought long and hard before beginning the bombing. They became alarmed towards the end of last year and tried to strong-arm the Kosovar leadership and Milosevic to sign up to Rambouillet. The US State Department handed out a series of deadlines, which came and went. They were reluctant because they feared the consequences. Is this how you read it?

Yes. I think they made a mistake. They expected the bombing to simply form a part of their game: they would bomb for a few days and a deal would be struck. They did not understand that this was not just a question of Milosevic but of the elite as a whole. The elite had to stand and fight because they had no alternative.

They seem to have made a stupid miscalculation. After the way Milosevic has behaved in the past, in Bosnia and elsewhere, why would they assume he would not take the opportunity to purge the ethnic Albanians of Kosova? Surely they had no right to believe Milosevic would behave other than the way he has?

Certainly he has been a ruthless opponent and, certainly, he belongs as a member to the set of Monsters of the Twentieth Century. However, he has co-operated with the Western governments in the past and, to a certain extent, he has also been a partner. I think they simply miscalculated, rather than "had no right" to assume he would act otherwise. In the past he has made deals. In the past he has massacred the other side, and then struck an agreement. They expected him to back down when they threatened to use real force.

I suppose you could say that if they were sufficiently intelligent to understand world history or the world economy they would have understood the situation. But I believe the bourgeoisie is in decline and fails to understand the situation. This is a symptom of their decline.

What do you think about the other aspect of the war: the war Milosevic and the KLA are fighting? There are a lot on the left who concentrate their fire on the KLA and who deny the Kosovars the right to self-determination...

The right to self-determination is a bourgeois concept. Nontheless, I think there is no denying the Kosovars' right to self-determination as a bourgeois democratic right. The left demand is about socialism and the working class.

But what does that mean for socialists, now?

The first thing for socialists to realise is that we have very little role. There is no socialist movement on the ground. That leaves us with putting forward our socialist programme. The left must not degenerate into supporting the nationalism or either side. That includes the nationalism of the oppressed Kosovars.

Yes, we're not nationalists. Yes, we should reassert the idea of working class socialism. Equally the Kosovars are fighting for independence. We should decide what we favour, and if we do not favour independence, we should say what we do favour instead. We should say whether we believe the British government should lift the arms embargo and give the Kosovars guns to defend themselves...

I don't think socialists can give advice to a bourgeois government...

This is not advice. Socialists should simply say what we want to be done.

The workers of the whole region must find a way of uniting. Yes, call for independence, but also be very critical of the various nationalist organisations: the KLA and the Rugova faction. We cannot support bourgeois nationalist organisations - under any circumstances.

Finally, in terms of the campaigning against the bombing, people like Tony Benn have adopted one demand - Stop the bombing. Of course that is also Milosevic's demand. What do you make of this?

I think this position is Stalinist. Obviously I oppose this, and clearly such political positions give some sort of comfort and support to the current Serbian elite. Marching alongside Serb flags is a total disaster for the left.

Of course, however, we cannot accept either side. We cannot support Albanian or Serb nationalism, even though we recognise the oppression of one by the other.