Good Bye Slobo

May God have mercy on your soul because there’s no way men can give it to you?

The death of Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav President on March 11, 2006 was an emotional event for me. I grew up in Western Europe during the 1990s and the murders and rapes that took place in the Balkans were part of my daily news reading and not only did I read about such events, I knew people from the Balkan region.

Mr Milosevic’s troops happily raped and murdered people across the Balkan region and his sound economic management of Serbia left many destitute. I can’t imagine anyone other than the “Gangster” class he created mourning his death. Many are upset that his death in his prison cell seemed so quick and convenient unlike the fate of victims. This feeling is understandable but I believe the most important task at hand is to access Mr Milosevic’s legacy and find out how we can ensure that no one else like him can rise to power again.

We should start by acknowledging the fact that while globalisation is the “hot” buzzword at economic summits, the average person still identifies with his or her own particular culture and will defend their identity or at least their means of identifying with a culture beyond logical constraints. One only need to look at the blocking of Dubai Ports taking over six US ports in its acquisition of P&O to realise this sentiment exists. Mr Milosevic was a shameless exploiter of Serbian nationalism. Not every nationalist is like Mr Milosevic but that does not mean we should ignore the fact that this feeling exist. We need to understand it, especially as the world becomes more globalised, if we don’, life can be more difficult for businesses and governments. Just look at the protest outside the Singapore Embassy in Thailand over Temasek Holdings buying Shin Corp. While the deal is legal and makes economic sense, Mr Thakshin’s opponents have utilised nationalist sentiments against him and Temasek Holdings. Neither Mr Thakshin nor Temasek Holdings was prepared for the nationalist backlash against the deal.

There also needs to be a debate on the value of “Non Interference” between nation states. The West, in particular, the nations of Western Europe were made to look helpless, as they were unable to stop the atrocities being committed by Mr Milosevic’s troops. More seriously, the West was made to look morally inept as the nations of Europe and the USA had made a “moral” point about stopping countries from invading each other and showed their capability of doing so when they drove Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait a few years earlier.

Some might argue that the only time countries should interfere in each other’s affairs is when their national interest is at stake. Kuwait has oil; Bosnia does not, so it’s only right to risk lives to defend Kuwait but not Bosnia. This argument is morally reprehensible and short sighted. While the West eventually stopped Mr Milosevic in Kosovo, it could have acted sooner. Today, the failure of inaction has created a lose-lose situation between the West and the Balkans. Balkan states like Bosnia are poor and dominated by gangsters who are causing social problems across Western Europe.

Mr Milosevic may have committed his crimes far away from Singapore and ASEAN. But that does not mean we cannot learn from what he did. ASEAN nations are living in peace, but that does not mean ASEAN is perfect. ASEAN neighbours have a convenient policy of “Non-Interference” in each other’s affairs. This policy has its benefits and nobody would advocate military intervention between ASEAN states, but surely it is time that ASEAN members took it upon themselves to encourage each other to govern their own people more effectively. As one American academic at ISEAS argued, it is better to deal with the cause of why people become refuges instead of dealing with a refuge problem. If we in Asia can learn this lesson, the Europeans who died under Mr Milosevic would not have died in vain.

Copyright: (C) Tang Li 2006