Response to Paul Phillips' Messages #'s 2 and 3 (this will not
be a short message):
Again Paul is right about many things and has highighted
some stupid and reprehensible aspects of the Balkan tragedy on
the parts of many actors (PS: Paul, can you send me a copy of
the Covert Action article you referred to, please? Am curious).
Nevertheless I feel the need to comment, correct, and respond to a
number of points that he has made. Although I think the bombing
may be "justified", my sense is that it will not achieve its
desired results and will probably only make a bad situation worse.
1) The role of US policy: I may be dead wrong, but I do not
believe that any organ of the US government was plotting "long
before the crisis began" to dismember Yugoslavia. Indeed in
Message #3 you emphasize that what happened in Feb. 1992 was a
_reversal_ of US policy when the US began to take such a course.
It was widely reported in the Washington media that the CIA had
forecast such a breakup, but this was not accompanied by any glee
but with foreboding. 1914 had not been forgotten. Indeed the
breakup has fully lived up (down?) to everybodys' worst expectations.
If it leads to the revival of a US-Russia Cold War, it can only
get worse.
2) Helsinki Treaty: You are technically correct that US policy
in Feb. 1992 was in violation of that treaty. But that treaty was a
dead letter by that time. Two months before, the Soviet Union had
dissolved by means that were also essentially in violation of the
treaty. Would you have supported the Soviet army rampaging through
Ukraine or Estonia in order to preserve the FSU? (I am more willing
to believe that US organs supported and long plotted that breakup.)
The unification of Germany was also a violation, if you want to get
technical. The more recent breakup of Czechoslovakia was also and
apparently was not even supported by a majority of the population in
either section of that former nation.
3) The ambush of retreating Yugoslav troops from Bosnia-Herzegovina
(henceforward, B-H, in this message) was stupid and reprehensible. But
it occurred after Serbs had already engaged in mass atrocities in Croatia
and is in no way comparable to the mass murders, torture, and expulsions
carried out on civilians in both Croatia and B-H by the Serbs. I find
it interesting that you identify "Serb interests" with "Yugoslav".
I fully agree that in Croatia, the Croats "started it" and that the
Tudjman regime did not guarantee Serb minority rights. But do you deny
that the scale of Serb atrocities is at least an order of magnitude
greater than that committed by all other Yugoslav groups put together?
This is the view of Amnesty International. Are they "biased media"?
Speaking of mass murder, torture, and expulsions, just what do
you think the Bosnian Serbs are going to do if (probably when) they
take Gorazde? What will be the breakdown of the above three categories?
4) Your point about the US Civil War is well taken. Of course the
British did aid the Confederacy, although not as fully as they might
because it was clear fairly early on that the Union would win (especially
after Gettysburg). I might also note that the South was defending its
right to slavery. What are the Serbs defending? Greater Serbia, which
includes large chunks of territory previously inhabited by other ethnic
groups, now murdered, tortured, or expelled (sounds like US policy
towards Native Americans).
Speaking of "plots", what about that of
Milosevic to assert Serb control over the other ethnic groups of
Yugoslavia? This was a major reason for the secessions. Perhaps they
were "paranoid" (so were the Jews in Hitler's Germany), but there was
strong evidence of his intentions after he suppressed Albanian autonomy
in Kosovo in the late 1980's (oops, sorry, I know, there are no
"Albanians", you do not recognize them as "an ethnic group"). So, the
efforts of outsiders to prevent Milosevic's scheme from coming to pass
is the cause of its coming to pass? Sounds like blaming the Holocaust
on Clemenceau (which, in effect, Keynes did).
5) Tito's Boundaries: Your point here is plain wrong, except of
course that there were lots of Serbs in other republics (they weren't
the only ones scattered outside "their" borders). With a few minor
adjustments, Slovenia's border with Croatia is identical to the one
existing in the Austro-Hungarian Empire between the Austrian and
Hungarian zones of control. Modern Serbia lost Macedonia, which it
had grabbed in 1912 from Turkey, but was granted the former Hungarian
territory of Vojvodina (and, oh boy, they want Macedonia back!).
Otherwise the modern borders of Serbia are what they were in 1914
(including Kosovo). Bosnia-Herzegovina was the third province (after
Austria and Hungary) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, WITH EXACTLY ITS
CURRENT BOUNDARIES (Herzegovina is in the south and is heavily Croat).
Of course in 1914, the Serbs did not like that and wanted it all. That
was why Gavrilo Princip pulled the trigger on Franz Ferdinand. Also,
in the 1300's there was a Bosnian kingdom, probably the only political
entity prior to the twentieth century to approximate the modern
territory of Yugoslavia.
You make a big deal about the name of the original Yugoslav state,
the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, declaring that all other
groups therefore did not exist. These were simply the three largest
groups in rank order of their populations. The kingdom was Serb-ruled
(after all, the side of Gavrilo Princip won in World War I, to the
victor goes the spoils), leading to great resentments by the other groups
(I shall NOT justify Croat Ustasha atrocities in World War II on their
very real oppression). Tito, of course, beat the Serb-monarchist Chetniks
who were collaborating with the Nazis. Part of the current problem, and
what Milosevic has been playing into all along, has been the frustration
of the Serbs at losing this domination of Yugoslavia after the war. I'm
sorry, but I do not see any reason to sympathize with this garbage.
Paul, when will you admit that the Number One Fascist in the region is
Milosevic? (I shall not be impressed if you tell everybody as you implied
in your message to me that his actions were justified by the fact that
60% of Kosovan university students were studying Albanian language and
history)
6) The Partition Issue: You are absolutely correct that the US
made a dreadful mistake in not accepting the 1992 Lisbon Partition.
Clearly the Bosnian Muslims would have been much better off and
Izetbegovic apparently figured that out. Warren Zimmerman, who happens
to be one of the more intelligent, moderate, and principled people
in the upper reaches of the US State Dept., seriously goofed and as you
have reported has admitted as much. My guess is that this was in
response to the already horrible Serb behavior in Croatia. Let me
re-emphasize, that although the Serbs refused to participate in the
"phony referendum" (tell us, Paul, why was it phony? Because the
Bosnian Muslims outnumber the Bosnian Serbs?), the B-H government had
promised to recognize Serb rights. THE SERBS HAD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
THEIR FEARS in B-H, in contrast to the situation in Croatia. The
partition plan arose from their refusal to accept the results of the
referendum. In hindsight, of course this partition plan should have
been accepted, but ex ante it looked, yes, like a power grab and was.
Having grabbed the isolated chunk of Serb-inhabited Krajina in Croatia
they wanted to hook it up with Serbia proper into Greater Serbia. That
required slicing off at least northern B-H, including territories with
few Serbs.
A higher level diplomatic error was not foreseeing in Feb. 1992 that
Russian nationalism would revive and would fixate on the Serbian cause.
That US fumbling in the region could yet lead to Zhirinovsky, or
someone of his ilk, coming to power in Moscow, remains the worst
possible potential outcome of all this. Full-scale war between the
former republics of the FSU, inspired by the Balkan example, could
make the example look like a garden party.
7 and last) I have no great solution for this tragedy. I agree that
the secessions should not have been encouraged and that it would have been
better if Yugoslavia had remained united. But then it would not have
happened if Slobodan Milosevic had remained a good internationalist
communist and not drunk the cup of rabid nationalism. Unfortunately
all current options look bad. The US bombing will be ineffective and will
probably only provide an excuse for the Serbs to engage in even greater
mass murders once they take Gorazde.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University
