The object of this analysis are the frightening parallels between Serbia and Hamas in terms of the conceptual and political culture that promotes despotism and authoritarianism as forms of government. This type of preference, or rather the silent consent of citizens for this spirit of government, has created the preconditions for slipping into the terrain of “humanitarian despotism” alias the legality of modern terror.
By Dr. Sadri RAMABAJA*
Despotism and authoritarianism vs liberal democracy
Despotism and authoritarianism are the most established forms of government and political control in the native world, although they are nuanced expressions and are used differently in political literature. Let’s take a closer look at these terms and their relation to liberal democracy. With the help of Immanuel Kant’s legal philosophy, we manage to help clarify this thesis by using the Kantian critique of despotic democracy to provide a normative standard for assessing the compatibility of Serbian despotic populism with democracy.
Despotism – is recognized, respectively accepted in the political literature as a form of government where one person or a small group holds absolute power and decides with authority over the life and fate of citizens. In relation to liberal democracy, despotism is often considered the antonym of liberal democracy. In a modern context, when we talk about despotism, we tend to think of regimes that lack the sense and readiness for accountability, the protection of human rights, and the involvement of citizens in decision-making processes.
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is defined by a government where a leader, a party, or an elite holds power, but does not dominate with as much authority as in a despotism. Authoritarianism often has a more complex interplay with elements of authoritarian control, but there can be several types of involvement of citizens and institutions. Some authoritarian countries have claims related to efficiency and stability, while the rights and freedom of citizens may be violated.
For some, despotism and authoritarianism are concepts that conflict with the basic values and principles of liberal democracy, including respect for human rights, accountability, and the involvement of citizens in decision-making processes. A fair and sensible assessment of these terms will
included an analysis of the specific situation and context in which they are used.
The object of this analysis are, however, the frightening parallels between Serbia and Hamas in terms of the conceptual and political culture that promotes despotism and authoritarianism as forms of government. These parallels would not have a stable foundation, if the Serbian and the Palestinian society did not have significant approximations in the conceptual level of governance and in general of the political culture that upholds despotism and authoritarianism as forms of government. This type of preference, or the silent citizen agreement for this form of government, has created the preconditions for the slide of the respective societies into the terrain of “humanitarian despotism” alias the law of modern terror. This illegitimacy comes not only through media manipulation and economic interests, philosopher Alain Badiou would say,[1] therefore democracy is endangered.
A possible interpretation of “humanitarian despotism” can be related to the concept of “humanitarian justice”, where an authority, international or domestic, can justify its actions in the name of protecting human rights or addressing emergency humanitarian situations. , regardless of the full respect of a state’s sovereignty.
However, it is important to note that any possible interpretation of this term must be evaluated in the context of its specific use and in conjunction with the political and legal debate based on the given circumstances. In the absence of a suitable or recognized usage of the terms, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about this concept.
The German philosopher and sociologist Weber (1922: 157) also comments on the fact that “attitudelessness and scientific ‘objectivity’ […] have no intrinsic relationship”.[2] The reports of humanitarian despotism and modern Serbian terror in the present case gives priority to the finding, respectively our assumption about the parallels in question. What is meant is that it is not the duty of (empirical) science to be bound to specify rules and ideals for social action or to derive them from the observation and analysis of social action. However, it is a fact that “The objective validity of all empirical knowledge lies exclusively in the ordering of given reality according to categories which are subjective in a specific sense, that is, in that they represent the assumptions of our knowledge and are based on the assumption of the value of those truths that only empirical knowledge is able to give us concrete data”. (Weber 1949: 110).[3]
Serbia and Hamas are financed by the EU
In the academic world, but not even in the pre-century political millennium, there is no general or complete agreement to determine how the European Union has tolerated, or not tolerated, issues that can be interpreted as humanitarian despotism in the Middle East, alias in Serbia and generally in Southeast Europe. This argument can even less stand as a thesis in the EU’s relations with South-Eastern Europe, which we unfairly refer to from now on with the pejorative name Turkish Balkans. The tolerance of Serbia is already a swimming fact.
The Middle East has been affected by many conflicts and political tensions, and human rights have often become the subject of international criticism.
The authoritarian behavior of some leaders in the Balkans has also become the object of these international criticisms. However, Brussels has continued to flirt with the despots of either the Middle East or those in Southeast Europe. An exemplary example is the extreme tolerance of authoritarian behavior to the extent of despotism of the Serbian president, Aleksanër Vučić.
The EU has often used instruments such as diplomacy, economic aid, and involvement in negotiations to help resolve conflicts and improve the human rights situation. However, it is difficult to make a strong generalization about how the EU has dealt with human rights issues and authoritarian policies as a whole in Southeast Europe, as these relationships and policies vary from country to country and are subject to developments. different.
***
Serbia and Hamas have long been financed by the European Union. Serbia is a country with a homogeneous Orthodox population, directly supported by Russia. But, since the capitulation in Kumanovo, on June 9, 1999, Serbia has surprisingly been protected by its former traditional allies within the EU, while in the integration process, including the Berlin process, it is the biggest financial beneficiary. from all the states of the region. Even in the last process, only Serbia has benefited as much as all the other five Balkan states put together, which claim to be part of the EU.
Hamas, although a Sunni organization, is directly financed by Shiite Iran, while earlier and until today, directly and indirectly by the monarchies of the Arab Gulf and the European Union.
The European Union says it is the world’s largest donor to the Palestinian Authority. According to the EU Commission, around 1.2 billion euros will flow from Europe to the Palestinian territories in the current period from 2021 to 2024.[4]
Both Serbia and Hamas base their strategy on terror. The difference between Serbia and Hamas in this area is very formal.
In fact, if we pay attention to the achievements of Serbia only during the last three decades, then it turns out that Serbia is a structure that organized and is responsible for four wars during the process of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, in which case it caused genocide first against Bosniaks and then to the Albanians in Kosova.
Meanwhile, Serbia, that is, severely provoked the opening of the second war front in Europe through military and terrorist aggression on September 24 in Kosova. See for this, the moral degradation of the EU is even greater, when it finances Serbia.
What happened on September 24 was a pale copy of the Russian plans applied in Crimea and Donbas before the start of the massive invasion of Ukraine that started on February 24, 2021. The shameful failure of Serbia should be exploited by the Albanian side and the partners. ours, in accordance with our national strategy and interest for achieving peace, respectively the conclusion of the imposed dialogue for the benefit of Kosova.
Ideology as the basis of extremism
In an objective analysis, it is important to note that Serbia and Hamas are different actors in the international context, with different characteristics, goals and history. Serbia is a country in the Balkans, while Hamas is a Palestinian political and military movement, largely a political formation that identifies itself with the future Palestinian state. However, the parallels between them, as we will note, are consistent. However, let’s look at some aspects that may present some parallels, despite their substantial differences:
1. Territorial claims and claims to a certain part of the territory: Serbia was the cause of four wars during the process of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, in which it committed genocide against Bosniaks in Bosnia and genocide against Albanians in Kosova. These days, the government of Kosova, while the dialogue mediated by the EU seems to have an imposed epilogue with the creation of the Serbian Community in Kosova, has warned that it is in the process of ending the accusation of genocide that Serbia carried out in 1998. /99.
Serbia had and continues to have claims against neighboring countries, first of all against Bosnia and Kosova, but recently it has revealed its strategy for the internal devouring of Montenegro. Serbia, despite agreeing with the Brussels agreement [February 27, 2023], parallel to the diplomatic dialogue, has prepared the aggression against Kosova. Recently, she declared without hesitation that in addition to not recognizing Kosova’s independence, she also refuses to recognize its territorial integrity. So, worry warns of the next aggression. At the same time, Hamas has been in conflict with Israel over the territory of Palestine and the declaration of an independent Palestinian state.
2. Protection of the rights of a community or group: In the case of Serbia, there continues to be an insistence on the alleged protection of the rights of the Serbian community in Bosnia, Montenegro, including that in Kosova. On the other hand, Hamas presents itself as an organization that protects the rights of Palestinians in the period of conflict with Israel.
3. Dangers from the international community and diplomatic isolation: Serbia has had moments of diplomatic isolation, especially during and after the Kosova War. In the case of Hamas, the organization has had a status recognized as a terrorist organization by several countries and international organizations.
4. The method of financing: Serbia continues to be supported in the economic and financial level first of all by the EU, but in the diplomatic and military level above all by Russia and China.
Hamas has regular support from Iran, but also financially from the EU!
In addition to these potential parallels, it is important to delve into the analyzes to understand the differences and the different context in which these two actors operate. The issues and challenges they face are different; international opinion and the international community have their specific commitments and perspectives towards each of these actors.
The claims that come in the case of Serbia, either from the European right or from the liberal left, that Brussels supports the Serbian people and the pro-European opposition, seem to be as superficial as in the case of Palestine, if not worse.
The Serbian government is the direct beneficiary of financial support from the EU. This current government of Serbia is nothing, but nothing, different from that of Milosevic. Neither in the ideological plane nor in the projections and strategies it applies for expansion. This is a known, public fact.
The declarations of the leaders of Serbia that they will never recognize the independence of Kosova and recently, quite openly and not without arrogance, they state that they do not even recognize the territorial integrity of Kosova, are an open expression of expansionism.
At first glance, it seems that there is no direct connection between Serbia and Hamas on the ideological level. But, in essence, extremism and political and military strategy have their source in ideology. Serbia, throughout the period of its existence as a modern state, has drawn up over twenty plans for the extermination of Albanians. The project for expansion to the detriment of the Albanians had begun after the recognition of Serbia as an independent state at the Berlin Conference [1878]. History has already stored in its memory the invasion and the first ethnic cleansing in the province of Nish e Toplica until Vraja e Kurshumlia [1878].
At first glance, it seems that Serbia is a country with a different history and cultural context from that of Hamas, a Palestinian political and military organization, but the deep respect for the differences leads us to logical conclusions that the similarities are very great. . Therefore, Serbia’s ties with Hamas are not only on the military level. In some cases, some parallels can be seen in how each entity deals with issues such as territory, autonomy and relations with different communities.
Serbia has followed and continues to have a diplomatic line that has supported the protection of its territorial integrity and since it has not been called as it was – the last colonosaurus in Europe [Kosova was simply a Serbian colony for a full 87 years], it is therefore against the recognition of independence of Kosova. It has never accepted the historical fact that the invasion of Kosova in October 1912 was done by war, exercising terror, but it also lost it after an asymmetric war with the KLA and finally with the larger Alliance military in the world – BATOn [1998/99]. In some cases, Serbia has adopted a friendly attitude towards Palestine, but has hidden this feeling in appearance in relation to Hamas.
Hamas, on the other hand, is a Palestinian political and military organization that operates in a context quite different from that of Serbia. But like Serbia and Hamas, in addition to having close ties with several countries and actors in the Middle East, what brings them together in the meantime is their deep cooperation with Russia and Iran.
International consciousness in motion
Since the terrorist attack by Islamist militants Hamas on Israel [October 7] and Israel’s counter-responsibility in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, the conflict in the Middle East has again received the attention of world opinion.
The need to resolve the Middle East conflict has returned to the international consciousness: many voices are in favor of a two-state solution. In the struggle for lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the two-state solution envisions, in addition to the state of Israel, a sovereign Palestinian state in the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The terrorist attack by Hamas may have postponed this solution to a more convenient time, but it cannot be used as an alibi for denying the right of the Palestinian people to exist.
The failure of the test through the aggression of September 24 and the defense of the bandits, declaring three days of mourning, speaks volumes for the Serbian objective.
Allegations that the European Union’s aid to the Palestinians is controlled and channeled to
life for civil and humanitarian purposes, they are very naive. Croatian specialized portal for geopolitics
“Geopolitika News” in one of the latest analyzes underlines this fact: “Hamas is the master not only of finances, but also of life and death, not only in Gaza, but also in all Palestinian territories, including, of course, The West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority, which emerged from Fatah, cannot resist him”.[5]
But those who know the political history of the region and the old agendas, but which always remain current, it seems that the declaration of Jordan as a Palestinian state is back on the diplomatic table.
The Jordanian option has been quietly and persistently pushed by Israeli politics for decades.
As the Croatian analyst writes, according to the judgment of the bearers of this idea, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is already a Palestinian state and there is no real need to create another form of Palestinian citizenship. Such a solution to the Palestinian issue is a long-standing dream of Israelis and a good part of Arab politics.[6]
Solving the Palestinian issue according to the Jordanian option is an old idea. It is based on the fact that Palestinians make up at least 60 percent of Jordan’s population. If this idea were to come to fruition, then a Palestinian state would be created by uniting parts of the West Bank or the West Bank as a whole with Jordan or Transjordan, where the Palestinian population predominates.
In a lengthy analysis by Jewish analyst and publicist Moshe Dann, published in the Jewish News Syndicate on May 3, 2018, “the problem with the ‘two-state solution’ – the creation of an independent sovereign Palestinian state west of the Jordan River – is that a Palestinian state already exists east of the Jordan River; his name is Jordan. Its population is mainly “Palestinian” and it is located in the eastern part of what used to be called “Palestine”. Therefore, demographically and geographically, Jordan is a Palestinian state.”[7]
Concluding his analysis, Moshe Dann concludes: “The promotion of Jordan as an Arab-Palestinian state is consistent with international law and the British mandate over Palestine established in 1922 by Jordan as part of the two-state solution.” [8]
Both the Middle East and the Balkans remain areas of American interest, the Achilles heel of American policy. This is evident even during the entire time that the war in Gaza is going on, as well as the delay in the dialogue between Kosova and Serbia.
The Bosnian Serb leader, Milorad Dodik, writes euractiv, once again supported the creation of a new state that would unite all Serbs in the Balkans, claiming that this is their legitimate right because, as he said, the only Serbian national issue remained unresolved in that area.
He openly defended this thesis in an interview he gave to the Russian propaganda service Sputnik in the last week of October, explaining that he sees Kosova and Montenegro, as well as Republika Srpska, as part of a “Greater Serbia”. [9]
After this belligerent statement by Milorad Dodik, the reaction of the American ambassador in Sarejevo followed, which makes the long-term commitment of the USA in the region even clearer. The surprise was that there was complete silence in the European centers!
The outbreak of the Israeli-Palestinian war threatens to spread into a wider regional war, while the rejection by the Serbian side of the Brussels Agreement [February 27, 2023], means a step closer to the outbreak of the second war front in Europe.
Above we affirmed the obvious fact that Serbia is directly controlled by Russia, which continues to be interested in the second front of the war in the Balkans. Hamas is also in fact run directly by Tehran, which remains keenly interested in regional dominance and is clearly opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.
Again, Serbia and Hamas have something in common in this plan: they are already positioned as anti-Western state and political structures and allies of Russia and Iran, who are currently the biggest allies in the face of the West. Therefore, this parallel between Serbia and Hamas, which is also related to their mentors, strongly reinforces the sentence that geopolitics does not recognize ideological determination, but only state interests.
* Dr Sadri RAMABAJA, Director of the Albanian Institute for Geopolitics, Pristina, Republic of Kosova
___________________
1. https://www.bpb.de/mediathek/video/200307/der-demokratische-despotismus/
2. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/7d1ecd5f-ea58-46a3-aca1-d336af640121/647071.pdf
3. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/7d1ecd5f-ea58-46a3-aca1-d336af640121/647071.pdf
4. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/eu-finanzierung-palaestinenser-100.html
5. https://www.geopolitika.news/analize/m-stefanov-hamasovi-ekstremisti-u-gazi-vec-su-hodajuci-mrtvaci/
6. Mario STEFANOV: https://www.geopolitika.news/analize/m-stefanov-izrael-vec-odlucio-da-ce-jordan-biti-domovina-palestinaca/
7. Moshe Dann: https://www.jns.org/jordan-as-palestine-a-paradigm-shift-for-a-two-state-solution/
8. Ibd
9. https://euractiv.hr/politika/a5000/Celnik-bosanskih-Srba-Milorad-Dodik-i-u-ponedjeljak-govorio-o-Velikoj-Srbiji.html
