Former First Secretary of the PLA Ramiz Alia on the Role of U.S. Imperialism in the World
Excerpts from the article published on May 10th, 1998 in “Koha Jone” (Our Time)
Ramiz Alia, former First Secretary of the Party of Labour of Albania, the man who presided over the attempt to save socialism, its failure, and then the subsequent transition to capitalism, wrote in a 1998 article his thoughts on the question of Kosova, the Balkans, and the role of the U.S. in the world. Here, the only topic which has been included is the third, because the first two reveal the degeneration of his character with the fall of socialism in Albania, tailing behind NATO to protect Albanian national interests.
But, nevertheless, the “old” character of Ramiz Alia was not completely erased. He was able to see the present era (which is currently coming to a close) of U.S. imperialism as the sole superpower in the world, its attempt to maintain hegemony in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. He notes three things: (1) U.S. adventures in the world are done to capture spheres of influence, not to aid the peoples; (2) that there are growing inter-imperialist contradictions among the “Great Powers” that are bound to erupt eventually; (3) that the disasters in Kosova and Bosnia were the fault of not just Milošević, as some claim, but of the U.S. above all (implying that it has always been in their interest to inflate Great-Serb chauvinism to an extreme degree in the past and in the present.)
Here Ramiz Alia does not mention this point, but it is worth noting that no “concerned” person in the West will ever mention the Ranković-era genocide of Albanians in Yugoslavia for nearly 2 decades, from the 40s to the 60s. During this time, Yugoslavia, with the Titoite revisionists at the head, was a great friend of U.S. imperialism and obtained all sorts of loans and “aids” to serve as a counterweight to the Soviet Union and the peaceful socialist camp. It concerned them nothing to mention this genocide, through which hundreds of thousands of Albanians were deported to Turkey. They cover it up today because Tito was a friend of U.S. imperialism and Milošević was an enemy of U.S. imperialism. It is not about “human rights” but about imperialist profits.
ShokuEnver
Different Balance for the U.S. and Europe
The changes that took place in the early 1990s in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union have forced the revision of many of the concepts and norms that previously governed relations between the states, as well as some of the relations established since the time of the Cold War. Consequently, the “rules of the game” are currently being replaced by other rules.
The greatest effect of the changes that have taken place is that today there are no longer two camps and two superpowers, which constituted the pivot around which world politics revolved. This fact alone has brought some consequences. Now the only superpower is the U.S. It seems like everything is simpler than it was. But in reality, it is not so. In the past, American hegemony, even over its European allies, was secured under the pretext of the “communist” threat of the Soviet Union and the countries of the East, which could attack the capitalist West day by day. Major contradictions between the two blocs alerted NATO, on the one hand, and the Warsaw Pact, on the other, leaving the two superpowers with the opportunity to exercise their hegemonic role in the respective camp.
What about currently? The U.S. can not count much on this factor. Europe feels it has escaped the anxiety of the “communist” danger coming from the East. As a result, it no longer feels the need for either the U.S. “atomic umbrella” or the US military presence. The fear that a military attack may come from the East, now and for several years, is highly hypothetical. Russia and other Eastern countries have much bigger problems to solve than to think about war against Europe. The transition to a market economy has so far not created any particular advantage for their strengthening, both economically and militarily. On the contrary, economic and political difficulties are on the agenda and are a major concern, both in Russia and elsewhere in the East.
Policy Reconstruction in Post-Communism
The upheaval in the East was also reflected in relations between Western European countries. Suffice it to mention in this regard the effect that the unification of Germany had after the fall of the Berlin Wall. A united Germany is now a great economic and political power, which will play a decisive role in the future, not only in relation to other countries and members of the European Union. It is already a strong competitor to the U.S. In today’s political literature, Germany is considered one of the three economic empires, alongside the U.S. and Japan.
The above developments, without going further and deeper, have forced the Great Powers, separately, as well as the European Union to rebuild their policies. The European Union’s efforts to enter the Middle East, which was previously the field of action of the two superpowers, and then only the United States, are notable. So “new shores” are being sought. Some time ago, the next EU President, British Prime Minister Blair, visited Israel and Palestine, which caused some dissatisfaction among the Israeli authorities, who stated that they accept only American mediation and no one else.
The U.S. has also revised its policy. With some difficulties in maintaining hegemony over Western European countries, they seem determined to maintain their untouchable role in southeastern Europe, the Middle East and beyond. Some time ago, President Clinton embarked on a long journey to Africa. It is clear to everyone that he was not attracted to African exotics there, but to other more material interests, which are in line with U.S. global strategy. The U.S. diplomatic and military activity in the Balkans is also significant, especially in its hot regions, such as Bosnia and Kosova.
The Test of Strength of the Great Powers
In this field of interests and contradictions, in my opinion, one should also look at the attitudes of the Great Powers towards the developments in the Balkans, given the importance of the geographical position of this peninsula in the movement towards the “new shores”. On the other hand, the break-up of Yugoslavia and the creation of new independent states have influenced the establishment of new inter-Balkan relations as well as the attitudes of various powers towards the countries of this vulnerable area.
It is known that the Balkans are “infected” more than any other part of Europe, by nationalist sentiments and populist pressure; it is an endemic hotbed of inter-ethnic strife. The disruption of the previous balance in Europe and the creation of new states in the Balkans has increased the risk of destabilization of this region, which is important for the whole of Europe. For these reasons, Serbian aggression against Albanians in Kosova poses a risk with unintended consequences, perhaps greater than those proven in Bosnia. A conglomeration in Kosova would imply a chain of almost all Balkan states, whose interests are vital in this area. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina killed hundreds of thousands of people. The Great Powers are responsible for this. Neither Europe nor the U.S. has been able to stop this catastrophe. They were delayed because intervention failed to meet their interests. Do you want to repeat history in the case of Kosova? The Great Powers would take upon themselves not only responsibility for the murders and crimes that may result but also eternal shame!
