Posted on 07/29/2008 10:32:30 AM PDT by Bokababe
The arrest of Radovan Karadzic in Serbia on Tuesday has provided yet another occasion for all the tired old propaganda about the Balkans wars to be taken out of the cupboard and given one last airing. In particular, the war is presented as one between a Serb aggressor and an innocent victim, the Bosnian Muslims, and the former is accused of practising genocide against the latter. Even if one accepts that crimes against humanity were committed during the Balkan wars, it should be obvious that both these claims are absurd.
First, the Serbs were no more the aggressors in the Bosnian civil war than Abraham Lincoln was an aggressor in the American Civil War. The Yugoslav army was in place all over Bosnia-Herzegovina because that republic was part of Yugoslavia. Bosnian Muslims (like Croats) left the army in droves and set up their own militia instead, as part of their drive for independence from Belgrade. This meant that the Yugoslav army lost its previous strongly multiethnic character and became largely Serb. It did not mean that Serb forces entered the territory of Bosnia, or even that the Serbs attacked the hapless Bosnian Muslims.
The accusation of aggression is intended to introduce by the back door an allegation which in fact has vanished from modern international criminal justice. Although the crime of waging an aggressive war was pronounced to be the supreme international crime at Nuremberg, it has been dropped from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia which will presumably try Karadzic once he is extradited to The Hague, and even the new International Criminal Court (also in The Hague) does not for the time being have jurisdiction over it.
The accusation has the effect of condemning the Bosnian Serb war effort at its very origins (in terms of ius ad bellum) independently of any condemnation for the way the war was fought (ius in bello). In fact, the Bosnian Serb war effort was no more or less legitimate than the Bosnian Muslim war effort. The Muslims wanted to secede from Yugoslavia (and were egged on to do this by the Americans and the Europeans) while the Bosnian Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia. It was as simple as that.
In my view, it is not possible to adjudicate such matters using the criminal law since, as political questions, they transcend it. But the fact that the Muslims blatantly cheated by holding the vote on an independence referendum at 3 a.m. after the Bosnian Serb deputies in the Bosnian parliament had all been told to go home, and the fact that the Bosnian Muslim president, Alija Izetbegovic, remained in office throughout 1992 long after his term had expired and long after he should have handed over to a Serb, meant that the Bosnian Serbs had excellent grounds for believing that the Bosnian Muslim secession was quite simply a coup d’état.
In any case, once the Muslims had seized power in Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs sought not to conquer the whole republic but instead simply to fight for the secession of their territories from Muslim control. Of course atrocities were committed against civilians during this period, especially ethnic cleansing. But the same phenomenon is observed, I believe, and by definition, in every single war in which a new state is created, whether it is the creation of Pakistan in 1947 or the creation in 1974 of what later became the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. If the Muslims had the right unilaterally to secede from Yugoslavia, why should the Bosnian Serbs not have had the right unilaterally to secede from the new state of Bosnia-Herzegovina which had never before existed and a state, and to which the Bosnian Serbs had no loyalty whatever?
Second, the Bosnian Serbs are accused (and two have been convicted) of committing genocide against the Bosnian Muslims in the massacre perpetrated at Srebrenica. Let us leave aside for a moment the Serb claims that the numbers of people killed in that summer of 1995 has been artificially inflated for propaganda purposes; let us also leave aside the undoubted fact that the Bosnian Muslims were using the UN safe haven of Srebrenica as a safe haven from which to conduct constant attacks against the Serb villages surrounding the town, during which many atrocities were committed against Serb civilians. (The commander of the Muslim forces, Nasir Oric, was released by the ICTY in February.)
What is clear is that the Srebrenica massacre cannot possibly be described as genocide. Even the most ardent pro-Muslim propagandists agree that the victims of the massacre there were all men. The Bosnian Serbs claim that they were combatants (although that is certainly not an excuse for killing them) but the point is that an army bent on genocide would precisely not have singled out men for execution but would have killed women too. The Srebrenica massacre may well have been a crime against humanity but it is impossible to see how it can be categorised as genocide.
Unfortunately, there is a very clear political reason why it has been so categorised. The Muslim president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haris Silaijdzic, said carefully on CNN the day Karadzic was captured that Karadzic’s trial was only the beginning of the process by which justice would be done in Bosnia. He said that there were hundreds of thousands of Muslims who had been ethnically cleansed by “Karadzic and Milosevic” and that their project therefore remained in force. The clear implication of what he was saying was this: if the very existence of the Bosnian Serb republic (the autonomous region within Bosnia carved out from the republic during the civil war) is found, in a court of law, to have been had as its president a man, Karadzic, who is convicted of genocide in the process of creating it, then its status would be illegitimate and it should be abolished. The Muslims continue to claim control over the whole of the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the Serbs merely want the preservation of their considerable autonomy within it.
In other words, far from bringing peace to the Balkans, it is quite possible that a conviction of Karadzic for genocide will reopen the Dayton settlement and egg the Muslims on to claim control over the Serb republic too. Under such circumstances, it is inevitable that the Bosnian Serbs would try to proclaim formal secession from Bosnia, just as the Kosovo Albanians did from Serbia.
And do you know of other large scale mass executions? Because the Hague doesn't. If anyone did, we'd be hearing the name of it over & over like we do "Srebrenica". (Not battles with those shooting back.)
"And don’t forget about the organized rapes and ethnic cleansing against non-Serbs."
Rapes are unfortunately a part of every war. "Systematic rapes" are not. I have yet to hear of "a Serbian Rape Battalion" and "the Serbian rape camp" stories proved to be a lie. Were Muslim women raped? Yes. Were Serb women raped? Undoubtedly, yes. Is that "genocide"? No, unless it cuts both ways and that would make Muslims "genocidal", .
Interestingly enough we NEVER hear the sad stories of Serb woman raped, even though the "systematic rape of Bosnian Serb women" were the first rape cases of to be reported to the UN -- and I can't imagine none took place after that.
Rape is a war crime, not genocide.
"Ethnic cleansing" (forcibly relocating an ethnic population against its will) may have been a hugely shocking buzzword back in 1996. But after we assisted the Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in ethnic cleansing about a half million or more Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, its pretty much a non-starter buzzword anymore. "Sometimes you have separate populations to keep them from killing each other" is more the thinking today -- and Dayton, fully institutionalized that idea.
The Laughland point is that the use of the word "genocide" was key to writing the entire Bosnian war off as "an aggression by Serbs", instead of seeing it for what it was -- a bloody vicious, multi-sided civil war over political issues -- that while it included war crimes, was not a war crime in and of itself.
One needs to separate and examine the political issues that created this war, separately from the war crimes committed during it. Because war crimes are the result of war, not the cause of it. War can exist without war crimes, but war crimes don't happen without war.
You wrote:
“The bulk of the Muslim men that died were killed by military action as the armed column fought its way to Tuzla.”
I seriously doubt it. 1) Combat deaths were extremely low - the simple fact is neither the Bosniak Muslims nor the Serbs fielded very effective armies. 2) Of the over 7,000 men known to have “disappeared” - any of those since found have been found dead, shot in the head or back or beaten to death, with their hands died behind their back, etc.
“If the Muslims were really worried about genocide, they certainly wouldn’t have left their women and children to the mercy of the Bosnia Serb army!”
Oh, so the Bosniacs should have known the Serbs would act like scum from before hand you’re saying? Gee, that’s a novel defense of the Serbs: Since the Serbs would commit mass murder, the Bosniacs should have known this ahead of time, because they - afterward - would be upset by acts of mass murder committed by the Serbs. Brilliant.
If you watch the video tape of Ratko Mladic on youtube and elsewhere, he SPECIFICALLY tells 30,000 Bosniacs “protected” by the Dutch UN Peacekeepers that they would be safe. His troops - and there’s film of this too - had Bosniacs call their fighters down from the hills to surrender to the Serbs (as in the infamous case of the father of Nermin). Those men were then murdered by the Serbs. This should be the film of the father calling to Nermin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdZ368y_6DI&feature=related
“Srebrenica was a armed camp used by the Muslims to terrorize the surrounding population!”
1) I doubt it was anything other than a Bosniac stronghold fighting Serbs surrounding it. 2) No matter what it was there is no excuse for murdering over 7,000 captured and disarmed men.
Disarmed by whom? Many died in the infighting among the muslim troops retreating to Tuzla, were they "disarmed"? Oh please...
You wrote:
“And do you know of other large scale mass executions?”
How often did the Serbs have a chance? The Serb army was so lousy that it struggled mightily to take cities it surrounded.
“Because the Hague doesn’t. If anyone did, we’d be hearing the name of it over & over like we do “Srebrenica”. (Not battles with those shooting back.)”
Have you heard of more than one province in Sudan? Dafur is the only one I’ve ever heard of.
“Rapes are unfortunately a part of every war. “Systematic rapes” are not. I have yet to hear of “a Serbian Rape Battalion” and “the Serbian rape camp” stories proved to be a lie. Were Muslim women raped? Yes. Were Serb women raped? Undoubtedly, yes. Is that “genocide”? No, unless it cuts both ways and that would make Muslims “genocidal”, .”
Go ahead and declare the Bosniacs genocidal. I won’t lose sleep over that even if I think that’s a bit over the top. But in any case, no matter what the Bosniacs were or weren’t it doesn’t change what the Serbs were - genocidal. Also, rape is part of genocide - according to those shaing international law:
http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/pif01/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE3D9163EF936A3575AC0A96E958260
Now, you may not like that, but this isn’t about your favorite flavor of icecream. This is about international law regarding genocide and, surprise, surprise, rape is part of it.
“Interestingly enough we NEVER hear the sad stories of Serb woman raped, even though the “systematic rape of Bosnian Serb women” were the first rape cases of to be reported to the UN — and I can’t imagine none took place after that.”
Never? I’ve heard of it so it might just be that you don’t pay attention.
“Rape is a war crime, not genocide.”
Genocide is not a war crime? Or do you mean rape is not part of genocide? Again, pay attention and follow the links above and you’ll see that that is NOT where international law is headed for better or worse.
“”Ethnic cleansing” (forcibly relocating an ethnic population against its will) may have been a hugely shocking buzzword back in 1996. But after we assisted the Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in ethnic cleansing about a half million or more Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, its pretty much a non-starter buzzword anymore.”
Whether it shocks you or not is of no importance to me. The simple fact is that Croats and Serbs are tried for ethnic cleansing. It is considered a war crime. Don’t like it? Start a campaign against it.
“”Sometimes you have separate populations to keep them from killing each other” is more the thinking today — and Dayton, fully institutionalized that idea.”
No. Dayton was not about blowing up buildings and forcing populations without their property onto the road with only the clothes on their backs. That is one of the charges against the Croat Ante Gotovina after all.
“The Laughland point is that the use of the word “genocide” was key to writing the entire Bosnian war off as “an aggression by Serbs”, instead of seeing it for what it was — a bloody vicious, multi-sided civil war over political issues — that while it included war crimes, was not a war crime in and of itself.”
It certainly became a war crime. It was indeed a multi-sided etnically and culturally based civil war. And Serbs committed crimes in it - and so did everyone else.
“One needs to separate and examine the political issues that created this war, separately from the war crimes committed during it.”
Only if you want justice to NOT take place. The simple fact is peoples can act so poorly in a war that any justifiable motivation they had at the beginning of the war can become moot by its end.
“Because war crimes are the result of war, not the cause of it.”
You have two mistakes there. 1) Waging aggressive war in itself is considered a war crime (ala Nuremberg). 2) War crimes are NOT the result of war. They are the result of criminal behavior. To say that war crimes are caused by wars is like saying theft is caused by ownership of property.
“War can exist without war crimes, but war crimes don’t happen without war.”
And theft doesn’t exist without property ownership first, but to claim theft is caused by property ownership is nuts. Criminal behavior is the root cause of crime - ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE. That’s why we try PEOPLE and not wars. People act criminally. Wars do not make choices.
You seem very confused. You don’t know what causes war crimes. You think they are caused by wars and not people. You are entirely unaware of FACT that international law tribunals are now increasingly accepting the notion that rape can be a war crime.
You wrote:
“Disarmed by whom? Many died in the infighting among the muslim troops retreating to Tuzla, were they “disarmed”? Oh please...”
Okay, look at the picture linked to here. Tell me which one of the Bosniacs is packing heat: http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Murder-video-broadcast-stuns-disbelieving-Serbs/2005/06/03/1117568372197.html
And which Bosniac was armed in this photo: http://children.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2007/07/srebrenica.jpg
You wrote:
“How many of the “dead” are like these two?”
Obviously very few. Remember, over 7,000 men disappeared. If you think they’re all living in Sarajevo suburbs you’re gravely (pun intended) mistaken.
You wrote:
“That’s a lot of people, Vladimir.”
Yep, and it Ante Gotovina is on trial for it. Murdering thousands of unarmed men is “a lot of people” too. Trials should happen for that too.
Coincidence! This just happened today:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/29/7-bosnian-serbs-guilty-of-genocide-in-srebrenic-1/
btt
Muslims of Srebrenica were not a distinct ethnic group, tribe or a nation. They were merely a fraction of Bosnian Muslim population living in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were combatants, not civilians. Bosnian Muslim men from nearby Bosnian Muslim Zepa enclave were not harmed.
Genocide is determined when there is AN INTENT to destroy an ethnic group AS SUCH.
The only genocide that occured in Bosnia is genocide of Serbs and Jews during WWII.
The European Union is what France and Germany together accomplished politically that, separately, neither was able to accomplish militarily.
"Ishaq:464 "The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men."
Tabari VIII:40 "The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence."
Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims."
By the wafen ss Nazi division commanded by the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Hussaini. The members of that division were the Muslims of the region.
Are you referring to victims like this one?
“And do you know of other large scale mass executions?”
" How often did the Serbs have a chance?"
So, in other words, you answer is "no, there was no proven pattern of a program of genocide", but you expect that your assumption of "they would have done it if they could" is a substitute for NO evidence of your claim. Ridiculous!
"Have you heard of more than one province in Sudan? Dafur is the only one I’ve ever heard of"
If I took more than a cursory look at the Sudan, I'd probably know more than Darfur. I've taken far more than "a cursory look" at the Balkans -- and no pattern.
The ICTY has become a complete joke -- ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO WISH TO SEE JUSTICE DONE -- a crime should be a crime regardless of who commits it, but that is not the case in practice. Based on that "criteria for genocide", virtually every and any war between nations where one national or ethnic group is killing another, can now be considered "genocide".
1) Waging aggressive war in itself is considered a war crime (ala Nuremberg).
Yes it is. And since you brought up Nuremberg, you might be interested to hear what Walter J. Rockler, one of the original Nuremburg Prosecutors had to say about it with regard to our policy in the Balkans:
As a primary source of international law, the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war criminals is plain and clear. Our leaders often invoke and praise that judgment, but obviously have not read it. The International Court declared:
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi leaders for planning and initiating aggressive war. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of the American prosecution staff, asserted "that launching a war of aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can justify it." He also declared that "if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."
The United Nations Charter views aggression similarly. Articles 2(4) and (7) prohibit interventions in the domestic jurisdiction of any country and threats of force or the use of force by one state against another. The General Assembly of the UN in Resolution 2131, "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention," reinforced the view that a forceful military intervention in any country is aggression and a crime without justification.
Putting a "NATO" label on aggressive policy and conduct does not give that conduct any sanctity.
It is clear that those laws made at Nuremberg could apply to those involved in the 1999 NATO Bombing. However it is unclear whether they could apply to the Bosnian Serbs, given that this was a civil war. This was not "one state initiating an action against another state".
2) War crimes are NOT the result of war. They are the result of criminal behavior. To say that war crimes are caused by wars is like saying theft is caused by ownership of property.
Wrong. "Crimes" are the result of "criminal actions" -- hence "war crimes" are criminal actions that take place in the context of a war. "War crimes" do not happen without "war". I am not confused, you are.
“One needs to separate and examine the political issues that created this war, separately from the war crimes committed during it.”
Only if you want justice to NOT take place. The simple fact is peoples can act so poorly in a war that any justifiable motivation they had at the beginning of the war can become moot by its end.
Wrong again. Simply deciding that a civil war that contains war crimes is automatically "a war of aggression", without examining the facts surrounding the initiation of hostilities, is "presuming guilt without an investigation or a defense". This is the same kind of methodology used for political show trials in totalitarian regimes. You can't hold up a court as some sort of "paragon of justice" and then let it behave like a court under Stalin's rule.
The Ottomans really messed the Balkans up by forcibly converting the Albanians and Bosinaks as well as some other Slavs, at least the greeks gave the south Slavs Christianity.
You wrote:
“If you honestly believe in bullshit, than be my guest.”
Apparently what I believe in is thus far irrefutable by you. Call it “bullshit” if that’s the only defense you can mount.
“Please explain how muslims who happened to kill each other were disarmed,...”
I never said they killed each other.
“... did they shoot themselves with slingshots?”
I never said they shot anyone.
“Are you referring to victims like this one?”
No.
True. But the ethnic groups in that region, from Bosnia south, were all subjected to pretty much the same "pressure to convert to Islam" as the others. The remaining Orthodox Christians are the ones whose families just never gave in to that pressure.
Famed Bosnian Filmmaker, Emir Kosturica, admitted that his family "was one of those Serb families who gave in to converting to Islam just to survive during the Ottoman days". Kosturica left Sarajevo during the Bosnian war and moved to Paris and then to Serbia, and he converted (back) to Orthodox Christianity just a few years ago.
How can Croatians cleanse what the Serbs already cleansed themselves? Galbraith said it the best.
Gotovina didn’t murder anyone, nor did he order any murders, nor did anyone under his command murder during Oluja.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
