Cafe Tito, Sarajevo

Tito Nostalgia: Uniting the generations

I just came back from a huge protest organized in the center of Sarajevo by the city's various youth organizations. The protests were organized to force the city's mayor and the canton's Primer Minister to resign after a series of violent acts by teenagers shocked the public and showed the inefficiency of the local authorities to provide even a semblance of safety on the streets of the Bosnian capital: a day after an elderly woman was burned alive in her apartment by three hooligans, a 17 year old boy was stabbed to death on a crowded tram while the passengers looked away. What I was particularly struck by at the protest were the images of Tito held by pensioners as well as the young people (as it is shown in the images above. The slogan says: 'Tito did not hide from the youth!"). The memory of Tito is omnipresent on the streets of Sarajevo and it crosses the generational gap.

I was struck by the resonance of Tito's memory among the city's inhabitants the other day when I was looking for the now-famous restaurant that carries his name. The restaurant was opened 5 years ago by three Sarajevans. I stopped an elderly man to ask for directions. At hearing what I was looking for, he grabbed me, pushed me towards him, and enthusiastically pointed to a small cafe across the street. "See, that's where it is!" he said, almost shouting. "We love that place, wonderful people go there, and we are very proud of it. Enjoy your time there." The cafe's red walls were peppered with the pictures of Tito: Tito fighting the Germans in the trenches of Bosnia, Tito with famous world leaders, such as Egypt's Nasser or India's Nehru. One wall was a relief of the famous Partisan-German battle on the banks of Neretva River. The waitress, a young woman in her 2oies, talked about the restaurant with the same enthusiasm of the lovely elderly man whom had just given me directions. (pictures of the restaurant in the next post)

While it is obvious that the memory of Tito has been very commercialized and made into the everyday kitsch, it is equally clear that this memory has a powerful political resonance for the people of Sarajevo. Tito's recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an autonomous republic in the midst of World War II and the emergence of a prosperous political Bosnian Muslim elite during his rule are in stark contrast to the divided, dysfunctional monster that is the Dayton Bosnia. The utter poverty in which most pensioners live in this city and throughout the country, the desperate hope of the country's youth to leave the country forever, explain the echo of Tito nostalgia across the generational divide.

What is significant is that the memory of Tito fuels the ideology that sees Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent, united, multi-ethnic country. In this respect, it is used to oppose the nationalist ideologies that want to partition Bosnia among its three major ethnic communities (most vocally advocated by the Bosnian Serb leadership especially after Kosovo's declaration of independence). In other words, rather than being a bland commercial brand, the images of Tito held by a frail elderly man and the energetic young man in the pictures above point to the continuing political capital Tito still enjoys in this country, 28 years after his death.

The sensitivity of Bosnians to any attempts to discredit Tito's legacy became clear in the early 1990s when on the brink of the war, the Serbian nationalist leadership wanted to move Tito's body from Belgrade to his native Croatian village of Kumrovec. Upon hearing this, the Croatian nationalists vowed that they would never bury Tito in the Croatian soil after which the Bosnian leadership offered to bury him in the Bosnian city of Tuzla.

Events in Belgrade

It is important not to over-emphasize the violence of last night in Belgrade. It is unfortunate that a rioter was killed while burning down the American embassy, but keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people protested peacefully on the streets of Belgrade.

Having said this, however, it is also important to note the dangerous behavior of the increasingly aggressive Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. There are several signs that point to his personal involvement in last night's inexcusable violence: 1) his speech purposefully echoed Milosevic's 1989 Gazimestan speech in which Milosevic promised that Kosovo would always remain Serbian; 2) there was no riot police guarding the American embassy, which seems so obviously pre-planned since the rioters had attempted a few days ago to break through the gates and it took them 45 minutes to get there and by then most of the building was on fire; 3) there are reports that directors of high schools throughout Belgrade let students out to join the protest, a deliberate use of teenager hooligans to stir up violence; 4) and finally, no sign of condemnation by the Serbian Prime Minister.

However, I think it is important for the US not to over-react to this, and I think they have reacted wisely so far. Rice has warned Kostunica if this happens again and Americans are hurt he will be held personally responsible, which of course he is according to international law guarding the safety of diplomatic staff. But at the same time, public anti-Serbian rhetoric will only stir up the nationalist emotions further and push Serbia onto the path of becoming more isolated, as it happened in the 1990s. The US and the EU have to offer carrot to Serbia and open negotiations for the speedy ascension into the EU and NATO. Yes, the war criminals Ratko Mladic and Karadzic have to be extradited to the Hague before the negotiations are concluded, but this is a long process and opening the first few chapters will do a world of good to President Tadic who, wisely, stayed away from the protest while on official visit to Romania and condemned the violence.

I really think this precedent argument is overblown. Kosovo sets the precedent for other states to secede just like Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Macedonia, (and before them, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, etc) set the precedent. You can also look back to the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires and claim that the emergence of nation-states on the ashes of these empires after WWI set the precedent for the age of nation-state. But this doesn't mean that immediately countries will follow like dominoes since there are so many individual local factors in all these regions (Chechnia: the Russian state is too strong for the movement to succeed; in the Basque region, the ETA seems to have lost a considerable amount of public support due to their violent campaign as it was shown by their willingness to agree to a cease-fire, etc).

Also, just because this might somehow set the precedent doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Despite the fact that Kosovo will be run by Eurocrats for years to come (as one of my friends noted in his comment on my last post about this), we cannot underestimate the enthusiasm this independence has injected into the young Albanian population. A German friend of mine has recently come back from his visit to Kosovo and talked to many young Albanians who were thrilled that they would get independence (even if in name only for now). They seemed so eager to help their nascent country and be constructive in the region. We cannot under-estimate how untenable the status quo has become in Kosovo and how impatient the majority of the Albanian population had become. So, despite this situation being murky in terms of international law, for now, it seems to have been the best of the really bad options in the region.

Again, it is important not to over-react to these events as they are still pretty sporadic and localized. Protests are going to happen in the future, in Serbia and Bosnia, but full scale violence is a really distant possibility (I hope this is not wishful thinking on my part).

Obama is the front-runner!

After winning ten states in a row Obama is definitely the Democratic front-runner. No amount of spin from the Hillary camp can turn the situation around by using this absurd logic that because Hillary was expecting to have a bad month of February, his wins are somehow less valuable. Just look at the numbers: Obama has won 24 states to Hilary's 13 states, and he has 1319 delegates to Hillary's 1245. Since the Democratic party allocates candidates in a proportional manner, Obama is bound to pick up a huge number of delegates in Ohio and Texas March 4 even if Hillary wins these states. And the latest polls show a statistical dead heat between Obama and Hillary despite Hillary leading with a double digit lead just a week or so ago. What is most significant is that Obama has cut into Hillary's base: white, blue-collar men as well as white women, and a significant portion of Latinos are moving in his direction. So, I have been thrilled to see Obama emerge as an undisputed front-runner as I believe he is not only the best candidate, but an amazing person.

Now, the main reason I decided to write this post is the idiocy of the so-called pundits (with notable few exceptions). Their stubborness in not declaring Obama the front-runner is mind boggling. Just last night "a Democratic strategist" said that even if Hillary loses Wisconsin, it will be a bump for her, but she looks ahead to Texas and Ohio and there Obama has his hands full. Mind you, this "expert" was not a member of the Hillary campaign. So, how many more states and delegates does Obama have to pick up, and how much more convincingly does he have to wipe the floor with Hillary in order to be ordained the front-runner. These pundits have been wrong on almost every single aspect of Obama's campaign and what is especially fascinating is that they still have a job.

Another thing that has made my blood boil has been the cynical attempt of Hillary to make Michigan and Florida votes count. Now, if the party wants to organize some sort of caucus or even primaries in these states and let the candidates compete, go for it. People should be heard in these states as well despite the idiotic behavior of their states' Democratic parties. But for Hillary to want the results of the primaries to count despite the fact that Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan and did not campaign in Florida, is just morally wrong. If she wins this fight fair and square, I will vote for her in November, but if she wins because of Michigan and Florida, I am definately staying away from the polls come November. This kind of behavior really gives credence to the accusations leveled at her that she would do almost anything to win.

Kosovo Independence

Well since everyone, from CNN international to the street vendor on the Marshall Tito's street in Sarajevo, has been commenting on Kosovo's declaration of independence I thought I'd share a few thoughts.

I have to admit I was really nostalgic and sad on Sunday afternoon as I was watching the live session of the Kosovo parliament because the declaration was the last nail in the coffin of socialist Yugoslavia. The Kosovo myth was what endowed Slobodan Milosevic with a godlike quality around which ordinary people gathered hoping that he would guide them to a better future. Instead, what they got was a series of extremely bloody conflicts that smashed the country into little pieces and made Serbia into the world pariah. The disastrous policies of Milosevic's regime inadvertently turned the myth of Serbian victimization in Kosovo into reality: hundreds of thousands of Serbs forced to leave their homes and pushed into cramped refugees camps that scatter Serbia. The declaration of independence made it very unlikely that these people will ever return.

Certainly, Milosevic takes a giant share of the blame for what has happened, but I have also been bothered by the way the media has covered the history of the conflict in Kosovo. The Serbs are portrayed as vicious killers while the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) as the liberators who finally achieved the Albanian centuries' old dream of independence. Given this biased and cartoonish coverage of the Balkans, it is useful to remind everyone that the KLA started the campaign in 1997, just two years after the Bosnian war ended, by killing Serbian police officers who were patrolling the region. The KLA also raided many Serbian villages, killing innocent civilians. Now, there is no doubt that the Serbian police responded without any regard for civilian casualties, but to paint the conflict as simply a Serbian aggression on the helpless Albanian population ignores the facts and a history of poisonous relations between the Albanians and the Serbs. These relations often degenerated into tit-for-tat acts of violence with both communities suffering immensely.

Now, to the NATO bombing of 1999. At the time it was carried out, I supported it, but I no longer do. The Rambouille accords which were offered to Milosevic in Paris on the eve of the war were deemed unacceptable by the Serbs due to the clause in the treaty which would allow unlimited NATO access to every piece of Serbian territory. No president of a sovereign state would sign this since it would amount to political suicide. Milosevic accepted all the terms except for that clause. NATO bombed. Following the bombing campaign--which by the way targeted civilian buildings and electrical grid in a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions--Milosevic accepted the deal, but the deal no longer had the clause which he had rejected in the first place. So my question is, why the war? I really think the war was a culmination of the international community's (mostly United States') frustration with Serbia over the war in Bosnia, and Clinton's obssession to show the Serbs that NATO still mattered. Following the bombing, the KLA unleashed a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign under the eyes of NATO forces who had promised, under the agreement, to ensure the safety of the Serbian population.

Having said all this, I do believe that independence was long overdue no matter how shady the conditions in which it was created. All countries are created in revolutionary and morally/ethically murky environment, but to look at this as a good versus evil fight (something the American media loves doing) would simply be wrong.

Finally, the muted response to the declaration is hopeful since it shows that the former Yugoslav regions have stabilized quite a bit since the 1990ies. The Serbian government protested, the Bosnian Serbs burned the Bosnian flag in the streets of Banja Luka, but no violence (only a few minor incidents) was reported. I think this is also because Kosovo became de facto independent in June 1999 and Sunday's declaration formalized it. Any violence that was bound to happen already happened in 1999 when the Albanians cleansed thousands of Serbs, similar to what the Serbs had done to the Albanians just a few months earlier.