|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: The
Balkan Crisis
IMF "shock therapy" and the recolonisation of the
Balkans
By Nick Beams
17 April 1999
Also in
Serbo-Croatian
During the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 Leon Trotsky wrote: "In
politics as in private life there is nothing cheaper than moralizing--nothing
cheaper and more useless. Many people, however, find it attractive
because it saves them from having to look into the objective mechanism
of events."
In all the acres of print and millions of hours of television
programming devoted to the Balkan crisis, beginning with the dismemberment
of the Yugoslav federation in 1991, there has been virtually no
coverage, much less analysis, of its underlying causes.
The reasons for this silence are not hard to find, for such
an analysis reveals that behind the propaganda smokescreen of
"humanitarian" concerns for the fate of refugees and
the victims of "ethnic cleansing," powerful economic
processes are driving the escalating military intervention of
the imperialist powers.
In his analysis of the November 1995 Dayton accord on Bosnia-Herzegovina,
the Canadian author Michel Chussodovsky noted: "[T]he break-up
of the Yugoslav federation bears a direct relationship to the
program of macro-economic restructuring imposed on the Belgrade
government by its external creditors. This program, adopted in
several stages since 1980, contributed to triggering the collapse
of the national economy, leading to the disintegration of the
industrial sector and the piecemeal dismantling of the welfare
state. Secessionist tendencies, feeding on social and ethnic divisions,
gained impetus precisely during a period of brutal impoverishment
of the Yugoslav population."[1]
In her 1995 study of the Balkan crisis, carried out for the
Brookings Institute, Susan Woodward took issue with the Washington
scenario, according to which "rogue states" had emerged
in the post-cold war world "headed by 'new Hitlers' such
as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic, who defied all
norms of civilized behavior and had to be punished to protect
those norms and to protect innocent people."[2]
Neither was the break-up of Yugoslavia, she insisted, the result
of the springing to life of ethnic tensions and conflicts that
had been held in a kind of "deep freeze" during the
previous 40 years.
Rather, the real origins of the breakdown of civil and political
order lay in the economic decline caused largely by the debt repayment
program imposed by the International Monetary Fund and other international
financial institutions.
"More than a decade of austerity and declining living
standards corroded the social fabric and the rights and securities
that individuals and families had come to rely on. Normal political
conflicts over economic resources between central and regional
governments and over the economic and political reforms of the
debt-repayment package became constitutional conflicts and then
a crisis of the state itself among politicians who were unwilling
to compromise."[3]
The causal connection between the debt repayment program imposed
by the IMF and the break-up of Yugoslavia is also the subject
of a recent posting on the Polyconomics, Inc. web site (www.polyconomics.com)
by the site's director Jude Wanniski, a former associate editor
of the Wall Street Journal. Wanniski has forwarded a memo
to US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright consisting of a report
prepared by the then Polyconomics staff member Criton Zoakos in
May 1993.
"In 1987," Zoakos wrote, "the old Yugoslavia,
with all its tragic failings, was still a functioning state. The
International Monetary Fund then took over economic policy, implementing
a number of all too familiar shock therapies: devaluation, a wage
freeze, and price decontrol--designed on the Harvard/MIT economic
textbook principles meant to drive the wage rate down to a level
where it would be internationally competitive. As the economy
contracted from this shock, revenues to the central government
declined, triggering pressure from the IMF to raise taxes to balance
the budget. ...
"These centrifugal forces began to tear apart at the federation,
with the richer provinces of Croatia and Slovenia objecting to
being drained of resources by the poorer provinces. Just as the
USSR splintered as the IMF browbeat the Gorbachev government into
a ruble devaluation, Yugoslavia broke into pieces as ethnic and
religious rivalries were reasserted in an attempt to control the
rapidly shrinking pool of resources. ...
"When the IMF shock therapy hit Yugoslavia, the initial
form of social disorder was not ethnic friction but massive and
repeated strikes and labor actions. As late as 1988, an enterprising
US journalist employed in Belgrade had difficulty in finding ethnic
passions and reported: ' "I would be a Serb, a Bosnian, anything--an
Uzbekistani--I'd make my eyes slanted, if I'd have money,"
says a Belgrade taxi driver named Zoran, stretching the skin around
his eyes to make the point.' Ordinary people turned into ethnic
monsters only after all their options for a normal economic life
were destroyed. 'Ethnic cleansing' arrived only after 'shock
therapy' had done its work."
Therefore, as Woodward rightly notes in her study "to
explain the Yugoslav crisis as a result of ethnic hatred is to
turn the story upside down and begin at its end."[4]
The origins of IMF "Structural Adjustment"
In order to begin at the beginning and reveal the economic
interests of the major capitalist powers driving the Balkans crisis
it is necessary to go back at least as far as the break-up of
the post-war capitalist boom.
With the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system in 1971-73,
when US President Nixon removed the gold backing from the US dollar
and initiated floating exchange rates between the major currencies,
world capitalism was hit by a series of economic shocks. Oil prices
quadrupled in 1973-74, leading to major imbalances within the
global financial system as oil-importing countries faced massive
balance of payments problems. The short-lived commodity-price
boom of 1973-74 was rapidly followed by the global recession of
1974-75, the deepest to that point since the Depression of the
1930s.
For the ruling classes of the imperialist powers these mounting
economic problems were compounded by a rising movement of the
working class--the 1974 miners' strike in Britain, the revolution
in Portugal, the growing wages militancy in the United States,
to name just some examples--coupled with a series of anti-imperialist
struggles in the semi-colonial countries, culminating in the defeat
of the United States in Vietnam in 1975.
Accordingly, the bourgeoisie pursued a two-pronged strategy.
In the major capitalist countries it relied heavily on the social
democratic and Communist Party Stalinist apparatuses to bring
the upsurge of the working class under control while pursuing
a policy of Keynesian social welfare spending measures to soften
the blows of the recession.
At the same time it organised the "recycling" of
petro-dollars through the international financial system in the
form of cheap loans to the countries dependent on oil imports.
But none of these policies resolved the underlying economic
problems--they only bought time. The 1974-75 recession ended,
but there was no return to the conditions of the post-war boom.
The economic crisis assumed a new form of so-called stagflation--the
persistence of high unemployment amid double-digit inflation.
This situation was rapidly leading to a crisis in the international
financial system. With inflation at record levels, the countries
in receipt of "soft loans" were in effect enjoying negative
interest rates. On the other hand, the capital stock of the banks
was being eroded. A new policy was needed.
It came in the form of the elevation of Paul Volcker to the
position of chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board in 1979.
After rewriting the Carter administration's budget of that year,
Volcker implemented a high interest rate policy to "squeeze
inflation" out of the system. In effect, this program, which
saw interest rates leap to as high as 20 percent, represented
a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the banks and major
financial institutions.
Whereas in the mid-1970s, the bourgeoisie had sought to buy
time, by the opening of the 1980s it felt that conditions had
sufficiently stabilised for a new initiative. This took the form
of an offensive against the social conditions of the working class
in all the major capitalist countries, coupled with a program
aimed at the impoverishment of the indebted nations.
Countries which had borrowed heavily in order to pay for oil
imports were hit on two sides. On the one hand, real interest
rates on loans rapidly escalated, while on the other prices for
commodities used to earn foreign exchange to repay these debts
fell rapidly, as the recession of 1981-82 took hold.
The tightening of this vice-like grip led to the Mexican debt
crisis of 1982 followed by the initiation of so-called Structural
Adjustment Programs (SAPs) by the IMF. Henceforth, indebted countries
would only receive new loans on condition that they undertook
a major "restructuring" of their entire economies, based
on the slashing of public sector-funded national development projects
and social welfare measures. The aim was to open the entire world
to the domination of the major industrial corporations and financial
institutions.
Summing up the effect of these policies in 1992, a former official
of the Inter-American Development Bank, Jerome I. Levinson, noted:
"[To] the US Treasury staff ... the debt crisis afforded
an unparalleled opportunity to achieve, in the debtor countries,
the structural reforms favored by the Reagan administration. The
core of these reforms was a commitment on the part of the debtor
countries to reduce the role of the public sector as a vehicle
for economic and social development and rely more on market forces
and private enterprise, domestic and foreign."[5]
These programs had a devastating impact. It has been calculated
that between 1984 and 1990 "developing" countries operating
under SAPs transferred $178 billion to Western commercial banks,
prompting a former official of the World Bank to remark: "Not
since the conquistadors plundered Latin America has the world
experienced such a flow in the direction we see today."[6]
Economic devastation in Yugoslavia
The effect on Yugoslavia was no less disastrous. The Yugoslav
foreign debt, which stood at $2 billion in 1970, rose to $6 billion
in 1975. By 1980 it stood at $20 billion, representing over a
quarter of national income, with debt servicing taking up some
20 percent of export revenue.
Debt servicing and repayment led to an increased fracturing
of the federal republic. Most of the industrial development had
taken place in the north of the country, in Croatia and Slovenia,
while the south supplied raw materials. As the relative prices
of raw materials fell, so the economic inequalities between the
republics increased, leading to increased tensions and demands
from the northern republics for greater autonomy.
As the federal government was pressured by the IMF and other
financial institutions to reduce foreign debt by expanding exports,
the resultant diversion of production from home consumption led
to a steady reduction of living standards throughout the 1980s.
Between 1979 and 1985 the real personal income of workers in
the "social sector" had fallen by 25 percent and by
1989 it is estimated that some 60 percent of Yugoslav workers
lived at or below the minimum level guaranteed by the state. The
standard of living fell by 40 percent from 1982 to 1989.
This forced contraction of home consumption did bring about
a fall in the foreign trade deficit from $7.2 billion to $0.6
billion between 1979 and 1988. But the rescheduling of debt meant
that the debt was reduced by only $1 billion and by 1987 had risen
once again to more than $20 million.
Describing the operations of this economic treadmill, the British
economist Michael Barratt Brown wrote: "There seemed to be
and indeed there was no hope. The same remedy was being administered
to all the countries in debt in the Third World and in the communist
world alike. 'Export more and pay off your debts!' was the chorus
of the World Bank and the IMF; and the more the debtor countries
exported of the same, often mainly primary, products the more
their prices in the world markets fell, while the prices of their
imports from the industrialised countries and their rates of interest
continued to rise."[7]
With the disintegration of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern
Europe in 1989, the IMF restructuring program accelerated. The
basic objectives for both Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia had already
been formulated in a US National Security Decision Directive in
1982 which called for "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet
revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties"
and for the integration of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented
economy.[8]
The impact on Yugoslavia of the IMF dictates is indicated by
the following figures. For the period 1966-79 the increase in
industrial production had averaged 7.1 percent per annum. After
the first phase of macro-economic reform, it fell to 2.8 percent
in the period 1980-87, falling to zero in 1987-88 and then collapsing
to -10.6 percent in 1990.
But even more severe measures were to come. In January 1990,
an agreement signed with the IMF required expenditure cuts amounting
to 5 percent of gross domestic product.
As Chussodovsky's account of this process details, the results
were nothing short of catastrophic.
"While earnings had been eroded by inflation, the IMF
ordered the freeze of wages at their mid-November 1989 level.
Despite the pegging of the dinar to the deutschmark, prices continued
to rise unabated. Real wages collapsed by 41 percent in the first
six months of 1990. Inflation in 1990 was in excess of 70 percent.
In January 1991, another devaluation of the dinar of 30 percent
was carried out, leading to another round of price increases.
Inflation was running at 140 percent in 1991 soaring to 937 percent
and 1134 percent respectively in 1992 and 1993.
"The January 1990 economic package also included the full
convertibility of the dinar, the liberalisation of interest rates
and further reductions in import quotas. The creditors were in
full control of monetary policy: the agreement signed with the
IMF prevented the federal government from having access to credit
from its own Central Bank (the National Bank of Yugoslavia). This
condition virtually paralysed the budgetary process and crippled
the ability of the federal state to finance its economic and social
programs. Moreover, the deregulation of commercial credit alongside
the banking reforms was conducive to a further collapse of investment
by the socially-owned enterprises.
"The freeze of all transfer payments to the republics
had created a situation of 'de facto secession'. The implementation
of these conditions (contained in the agreement signed with the
IMF) was also part of the debt-rescheduling arrangements reached
with the Paris and London clubs [the major Western financial institutions].
The IMF-induced budgetary crisis had engineered the collapse of
the federal fiscal structure. This situation acted in a sense
as a fait accompli, prior to the formal declaration of
secession by Croatia and Slovenia in June 1991. Political pressures
on Belgrade by the European Community combined with the aspirations
of Germany to draw the Balkans into its geo-political orbit had
also encouraged the process of secession. Yet the economic and
social conditions for the break-up of the federation resulting
from ten years of 'structural adjustment' had already been firmly
implanted."[9]
One of the major demands of the IMF was that the federal government
and financial authorities should cease funding "loss-making"
enterprises. In 1989 some 248 firms were liquidated and 89,400
workers were laid off. But more was to come. In the first nine
months of 1990 a further 889 enterprises with 525,000 workers
were subjected to bankruptcy proceedings, with the largest concentration
of such firms in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo.
In September 1990, the World Bank estimated there were another
2,435 "loss-making" enterprises, with a combined workforce
of 1.3 million workers, out of a remaining total of 7,531. As
Chussodovsky notes: "Bearing in mind that 600,000 workers
had already been laid off by bankrupt firms prior to September
1990, these figures suggest that some 1.9 million workers (out
of a total of 2.7 million) had been classified as 'redundant'.
The 'insolvent' firms concentrated in the energy, heavy industry,
metal processing, forestry and textiles sectors were among the
largest industrial enterprises in the country representing (in
September 1990) 49.7 percent of the total (remaining and employed)
industrial workforce."[10]
A new colonisation
What these economic statistics underscore is that the current
intervention by the NATO powers is nothing other than the continuation
by other, that is, military means of the agenda carried out in
the preceding period--the destruction of all the previous economic
and social development in Yugoslavia and the transformation of
the entire region into a kind of semi-colony of the major capitalist
powers.
Nowhere is this process more clearly seen than in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Under the Dayton accords of November 1995, these aims were written
into the constitution of the new "republic". The so-called
High Representative appointed by the US and the European Union
was given full executive power with authority to overrule the
governments of both the Bosnian Federation and the Bosnian-Serb
Republika Srpska.
Economic policy was placed in the hands of the major international
financial institutions. The constitution stipulated that the first
governor of the Central Bank of Bosnia Herzegovina was to be appointed
by the IMF and "shall not be a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina
or a neighboring State ..."
Furthermore the Central Bank was not allowed to pursue an independent
economic policy and for the first six years "may not extend
credit by creating money, operating in this respect as a currency
board." That is, it could only issue paper currency where
this was fully backed by holdings of foreign currency. International
loans were not allowed to finance economic reconstruction but
have been used to fund the military deployment under the Dayton
agreement as well as repaying debts to international creditors.[11]
Having secured the effective recolonisation of Bosnia Herzegovina,
the imperialist powers, with the US in the lead, have now moved
to extend this process to the rest of Yugoslavia. As the publication
of the Rambouillet agreement makes clear, the NATO military intervention
was never intended to be confined to Kosovo but envisaged the
occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia. In short, behind the propaganda
barrage, the "objective mechanism of events" is nothing
else but the drive to recolonise the entire region.
Notes
1. Michel Chussodovsky, The Globalisation
of Poverty pp. 243-244
2 .Susan Woodward, Balkan Tragedy p. 7
3. op cit p. 15
4. Woodward op cit p. 18
5. cited in Doug Henwood, Wall Street pp. 294-295
6. cited in Asad Ismi, "Plunder With a Human Face",
Z magazine February 1998
7. Michael Barratt Brown, "The War in Yugoslavia and the
Debt Burden" in Capital and Class No 50, 1993
8. Chussodovsky op cit p. 244
9. Chussodovsky op cit pp. 246-247
10. Chussodovsky op cit p. 251
11. Chussodovsky op cit p. 256
See Also:
How the Balkan war was prepared
Rambouillet Accord foresaw the occupation of all Yugoslavia
[14 April 1999]
Kosovo "freedom fighters" financed
by organised crime
[10 April 1999]
Behind the war in the Balkans
A reply to a supporter of the US-NATO bombing of Serbia
[8 April 1999]
The United States and the war in the
Balkans: On the road to catastrophe
[8 April 1999]
Marxism, Opportunism and the Balkan Crisis
[Statement of the ICFI, 7 May 1994]
War in
the Balkans
[WSWS Full Coverage]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |