Pen-ners
Since my response to Nathan elicitated not only a considerable
response, and several requests for elaboration, but also
unsolicited responses for additional information and at response
to a private communication that was not posted to this network, I
am goaded (prompted, flattered) to respond at length. But, before
you hit the <del> key, I will respond like "hire-purchase"
agreements, in installments. (My dog needs to go for a walk
before I can finish this post otherwise).
First, my comment that western countries (the US in particular
should avoid intervention in Bosnia since they have done enough
damage already. Some people rejected this view.
Let me first quote from Sean Gervasi "Germany, US, and the
Yugoslav Crisis" _Covert Action_ Winer 1992-93. Yugoslavia has for
some time been the target of a covert policy waged by the West and
its allies, primarily Germany, the United States, Britain, Turkey,
and Saudi Arabia, as well as by Iran, to divide Yugoslavia into its
ethnic components, dismantle it, and eventually recolonize it." (p. 41)
If you still have any doubt, read the article and the US state
department documents that support it and then tell me that the US
and Germany did not have the dismemberment of Yugoslavia *on ethnic
lines at the expense of Serbia* long before the crisis arrived.
Secondly, the actions of Germany and the US (supported by
the EC after being blackmailed by Germany) are in contravention of
the 1975 Helsinki agreement that guaranteed the post-war national
boundaries of Europe (not the ethnic boundaries of sub-national
units). The US and Germany apparently see themselves as above
international agreement and treaty -- depending on their convenience.
Thirdly, the Yugoslav constittution proved the *obligation* of
the Yugoslav army to protect the unity and territoriality of
Yugoslavia. Therefore, it had the constitutional obligation to
prevent the breakaway of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia despite the
international interference of the US and Germany. When it did so
the US, Germany and the UN (under US/German domination) objected
and in the case of Bosnia forced the Yugoslav army to withdraw --
leaving the irregulars and the militias of the right-wing neo-fascists
to represent Serbian interests and prevent incursions on Serbian
interests and properties.
Then, under the pressures from north America and Europe and on
the basis of highly biased reports (I will go into that in my nest
post) the UN intervened -- led first by Canada. All you doubters
should read General McKenzie's biographical account of that period.
(It is called _Peacemaker_). The first "atrocity" committed in
the subsequent period was, in his account, the ambush of the
peaceful withdrawel of Yugoslav troups by the Bosnian (Muslim)
army. Nor was this the first atrocity practiced on the Serbs --
ethnic clensing had already been practiced in Croatia against the
resident Serb population, long before whatever happened in
Bosnia (This is not an apology for subsequent Serb atrocities --
it is merely to point out that the press accounts that Serbs are
responsibly, and solely responsible, for atrocities or even the
initiators of atrocities is factually wrong. As a final point
in this first post, why did the US army fight the South when it
declared unilateral independence? Obviously, if the UN had
been in existence, Britain would have sent in its Navy to defeat
the North since it had no right to defend the integrity of the US.
MY god I hate hypocrisy!
If you want more?
Paul Phillips
