Shortage and Surplus

I was in Skopje last weekend, just when the Macedonian army started to climb upwards near Tetovo. The situation there is more than dramatic, it is about the future of the country and its survival, so one could expect that the presence of history be felt almost in the streets, in the attitude of common people, in all contacts and conversations. But, it is not quite so. Even those whose job is to talk about that crisis in public did not appear too excited or too concerned.

Only the skilled foreign journalists somewhat managed to raise the degree of seriousness of the overall situation, but they had to do that with the evident effort. Their problem is that it is another Balkan story, probably with a brutal and tragic outcome, since they do not know whose side to shield: the Albanians and Macedonians are Western allies, that is positive and righteous, so their conflict is in its essence absurd, unwise and incomprehensible.

However, it occurred to me that it is not quite normal to fall asleep while someone opens fire around you. At least the citizens of Macedonia should not be negligent about how their country is going to look like, although I fear that most of them were more concerned about the Oscar rewards. Perhaps it is because everybody is aware that all crucial decisions will surely arrive from a distant and commanding location, and that nobody in Macedonia will have a chance to exert some major influence.

Perhaps, Macedonia will cease to exist, perhaps not, or maybe it will be far different from what it is now. Its citizens will be asked about it, just like their neighbours Albanians, but many other things will also be taken into consideration, so some sort of decision will eventually be reached. That is, therefore, a situation of a minimal sovereignty of one country, on which Macedonia, having no other choice, happened to agree at the very beginning. Serbia behaved in a reverse way and has been the most sovereign country in Europe (something like Switzerland, which was also not a member country of the EU, although by its own will). If we now perceive that, in the case of Macedonia, the shortage of sovereignty and a total dependence on the ‘international community’ does not bring peace or guarantee a mere survival, let us remember that Serbia has paid way too much for its surplus of sovereignty and finally found itself on the verge of survival.

That means that in this period of head-clearing and balancing, Serbia (and Montenegro?) must be very careful about finding a right measure of sovereignty and it seems to me that, for example, the co-operation with the Hague Tribunal is pretty much related to these concerns. In that, as well as in many other things, Serbia should protect its sovereignty and independence as long as the country can bear it and as long as it proves profitable. In this case, profitability, should not be measured too directly or is not supposed to be short-term; a certain degree of proud and dignity, even if indigent, can be of much profit. After the fall of the super-sovereign regime, it was logical and necessary for the new authorities to show that they had learned the lesson and that they do not intend to continue exhibiting their opinions on everything. But, it is not essential that Serbia reduce its sovereignty down to the Macedonian level, nor should it recognise in advance that, from now on, everybody else will have right to decide its future.

There are evident differences in the way of thinking among the leaders of DOS (the Democratic Opposition of Serbia) and the public. Some of them are of the opinion that, since Milosevic was in a grave conflict with the ‘international community’, his fall should be understood as the victory of the outer world. Others, on the other hand believe that his defeat represents the victory of a genuine Serbia, which only now has right to claim its sovereignty. One side abhorrs the possible dangers of a new isolation and spite towards the whole world, the other fears the loss of the national identity and self-respect. It would be best if these two currents could remain properly balanced.

The national sovereignty has become unpopular at the time of the greatest hopes in the unification of Europe, following the idea of globalisation, the end of history and a general relief about the happy end of the cold war.

However, it would be worth noticing that no world government is yet in sight, and that even the old United Nations are not in the best shape. The world can easily take an entirely different direction. Therefore, we should diminish our enthusiasm concerning the reduction of national sovereignties, especially in the Balkans where it is highly risky. In any case, Serbia is not obliged to be a regional vanguard in that affair, with hope that everyone will follow its path.

If the case with Macedonia was didactic in any sense, then nobody should rely on mercy and pity of the entire world. Not only is it insecure, it also contaminates the character. Then, if you have nothing against the process of globalisation, if you think that it is logical and inevitably positive that America should lead and shape the rest of the world, you should not believe that America is doing that because of you. Do not be so sure that someone comprehends everything there, that he knows exactly what he is doing and that he does it for your own good, although they are experts to wrap things in such a way. Instead, it would be much better if we learned what is wrapped in what way, which is particularly important in our relations with America. They are becoming more and more difficult to negotiate with, they hear less and less what others have to say, and still they become angry when someone else raises his voice. Nonetheless, one must not give up the attempts. There would be no sense if the Albanians turned out be the only profiteers of globalisation in the Balkans.