Blog Archives
Croatia A Victim? Not in This Century
Yesterday, the Washington Times (yes, the Moonie cult founded newspaper) ran an absurd editorial by Jeffrey T. Kuhner defending Croatian military leader Ante Gotovina, and decrying the ICTY for its prosecution of him. Kuhner seems to be of the belief that Croatia was a victim of Serb nationalism, that Slobodan Milosevic would have destroyed said country if left unchecked, and that the only individuals who deserve punishment for the events of the Wars of Yugoslav Secession are Serbs. His view doesn’t much differ from that of the average American, who being fed a steady 90′s diet of CNN and the New York Times, sees the Serbs as the bloodthirsty butchers of Europe, heir to the legacy of brutality once associated with Adolph Hitler. But, such a belief has little basis in the facts.
To properly understand the events of the Wars of Yugoslav Secession, we must understand Yugoslav history, which begins with the defeat of the Central Powers during WWI. In the post-war settlement, the Western allies sought to create a number of independent states in East-Central Europe that would be powerful enough to prevent the resurgence of Germany and Austria, and counterbalance the dominance of the USSR, while still weak and conflict-ridden enough that international intervention by way of the League of Nations would be necessary. To that end, the nations created were not borne out of plebiscites, despite the grandiose rhetoric championing self-determination and democratic governance. Rather, states were shaped to ensure conflict.
Europe in 1922 - Click to Enlarge
As the enlarged version of the above map should make clear, the borders drawn were bound to cause problems. For example, Danzig was left to the Germans, but was geographically isolated from the rest of said country, as all the intermediate territory was awarded to Poland. Similarly, a large portion of Silesia was awarded to the Czechs, much to the dismay of both the Germans and the Poles. Perhaps most famously, the Sudatenland went to Czechoslovakia, which was appropriate, since Germans made up less than 25% of the population, but which all the same enraged Germany. Territorial disputes aside, the new map of Europe broke up empires, and restored historic states such as Poland, which had died out in 1795 when Russia, Austria, and Germany (then still known as Prussia) partitioned it.
Yugoslavia however, was unique. Never before had a Yugoslav state existed. As I’ve written about before, there is a well-established history of a Serb state, which included Kosovo, Montengro, Bosnia, and much of Macedonia. It even included portions of Croatia. However, the historic record is not replete with evidence of Serb rule over the collective Croat community, whose independence before World War II is a contested historical matter. And it certainly never included Slovenia. As historian Joseph Rothschild notes quite clearly in East Central Europe Between the Two World Wars, the Serbs wanted their monarchy to cover historic territory, and had no interest in being co-nationals with the Croats and Slovenes. Likewise, because the monarchy of Yugoslavia would be Serbian, neither the Croats or the Slovenes cared for such an arrangement. Lacking any sense of national unity, the country quickly fell apart when faced with a second world war.
For its part, following the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, the Croats jumped at the prospect of an alliance with Hitler, whilst their Serb brethren mounted two major resistance movements (the Partisans and the Chetniks). As soon as the invasion was complete, they installed Ante Pavelic, who had been under the protection of Mussolini following the French indictment against him for the double assassination of Yugoslavian King Alexander I and French foreign minister Louis Barthou, as dictator. As Avro Manhattan noted in his groundbreaking word The Vatican’s Holocaust:
The Nazis had records of massacres of their own second to none. Yet the horrors committed by Pavelic’s Ustashi troops proved to be of such bestiality as to shock even them: a most crushing evidence that the Ustashi massacres had surpassed anything experienced even by the Germany of Hitler. The magnitude of the butchery can best be gauged by the fact that within the first three months, from April to June, 1941, 120,000 people perished thus. Proportionately to its duration and the smallness of the territory, it had been the greatest massacre to take place anywhere in the West prior to, during, or after that greatest of cataclysms, the Second World War.
Pg 54 (1986, Ozark Books)
As the previously linked Jerusalem Post article makes clear, this brutality was not the mere result of cold, machine-like efficiency, but driven by demented competition:
On August 29, 1942, a friar from the monastery of Siroki Brijeg, named Petar Brzica, won first place for killing the most Serbs in the shortest time, boasting 1,350 throats slit in one night.
The Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) have almost as revolting a track record, but I shall avoid extensive discussion of the matter, as it is somewhat tangential to the subject at hand. What I hope the above illustrates is that the first Yugoslav confederation, known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, was doomed to fail, because it grouped enemy peoples under one government, who were happy to fracture as soon as the opportunity presented itself, with catastrophic results thereafter.
After World War II, the Western allies once again re-built Yugoslavia, this time replacing a Serb-led monarchy with a Communist dictatorship. Leading this unfortunate entity was Josip Broz Tito, a Croat by birth who led the Yugoslav Partisans (which was, in the early days, was largely comprised of Serbs from Montengro and Bosnia). It was his wartime actions which left him in power for decades thereafter. But, it is vital to note, that the only reason the Partisans became the dominant force is because Churchill betrayed the Chetniks, seemingly due to faulty intelligence passed on by highly-placed Soviet moles. A regime under his command was commensurate with the Yalta “percentages agreement” reached between Churchill and Stalin to divide influence in the new Yugoslav state evenly, as Tito was a communist, but not loyal to Stalin.
Of course, World War II hadn’t changed anything, except that now the hostility between Serbs and Croats was greater than ever, and the government had replaced monarchy with communism. With the death of Yugoslavia’s master manipulator, who routinely re-wrote the national constitution and shifted the internal borders to dilute the influence of Serbs displeased with his leadership (and in so doing empowering many of the groups who would agitate for war soon thereafter) it was all but assured that the state would fail not long after his death.
It is here where we can begin to discuss Milosevic, and the allegations of Serb brutality during the Wars of Yugoslav Secession. Kuhner echoes the dominant Silber and Little thesis, made famous in the undeservedly popular Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation, which portrays the collapse as a necessary and blameless reaction by non-Serbs to extreme Serb nationalism as anchored by Slobodan Milosevic. To dispel such nonsense, we must look at Milosevic’s rhetoric, rise to power, and actions once in power.
Milosevic first became a recognizable figure within the Serb community on April 24, 1987, when he spoke before a crowd of 15,000 Serbs in Kosovo Polje. Tensions were high, as the continued influx of Albanian immigrants under Titoist policy had given the group a super-majority, which threatened the political and safety rights of the ever-dwindling Serbian minority population, already subject to mass violence. Accordingly, the Serbs in Kosovo clamored for intervention by the Federal government on their behalf, which had not yet happened. As an empty gesture designed more to pacify the crowd of angry Serbs than to facilitate a redress of grievances or study the situation to determine an appropriate course of action, Milosevic had been “dispatched from Belgrade (as documented by Louis Sell in “Slobodan Milosevic: A Political Biography,” which ran in Problems of Post-Communism 46.6 Nov/Dec 1999).” This is particularly important to understand as it makes clear Milosevic went to Polje not with an agenda that would end with his seizure of power, but because his superiors ordered he go there and give a party-approved speech devoid of any proposals for a change in policy that would give Serbs equal protection in Kosovo. In other words, he was sent in as a pawn with no nationalist aims.
His statements acknowledged the importance of Kosovo, though not in radically nationalist terms. Speaking of the situation, Milosevic described it as “the weightiest problem during a difficult economic crisis, when standards have fallen drastically, when prices have climbed, when there are more unemployed,” thereby attempting to frame his case in the prism of communism that so defined his policy. In the speech, he specifically cautioned against degenerating into nationalist conflict, saying “I believe that those who carry the spirit of brotherhood and unity, equal rights and progressiveness can be and must be the only working class of Kosovo, because those that are unified have identical interests, and the least reason to divide into nationalism.” Only through willful misinterpretation of his words can sentiments of Serb nationalism be found in his words. Lines such as “It was never in the spirit of the Serbian and Montenegrin nation to bow before adversity, to demobilize when they need to fight, to demoralize when times are tough. You need to stay here because of your forefathers and because of your descendants. You would shame your forefathers and disappoint your descendants,” must be understood in context. He was not concerned so much with asserting Serb control over Kosovo as he was interested in ensuring that Serbs and Montenegrins not be “pressured by crime and humiliation” to give up their land, and that Kosovo have a sufficient ethnic balance that the Albanians could not achieve their secessionist aims. This is particularly well evidenced by his concluding statement that “Yugoslavia would disintegrate without Kosovo! Yugoslavia and Serbia will never give up Kosovo!” The mention of Serbia is expected because Kosovo, though largely autonomous, was (and technically speaking still is) a province of Serbia. But that is of relatively little consequence, for he focuses chiefly on Yugoslav unity, speaking to the need for action in Kosovo based on its integral role in preserving Yugoslavia.
Many cite his 1989 speech marking the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo as evidence of his nationalist vision for Serbia. Indeed, his rhetoric was more firebrand than before, and one so motivated could pick out individual statements that seem somewhat damning. Yet the overall tone is again moderate. “Yugoslavia is a multinational community and it can survive only under the conditions of full equality for all nations that live in it,” he said. And even when speaking of Serbia itself, Milosevic noted that “Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage.”
Certainly, this does not sound like the rhetoric of an ardent Serb nationalist. Compare these statements against the words of his Bosniak and Croat counterparts, and it becomes apparent just how moderate Milosevic’s words were. Of course, politicians throughout history have said one thing and done another. So, we must ask, is Kuhner’s claim reasonable? Did Milosevic really aim to “unite the truncated parts of Croatia with the nearly 70 percent of territory his forces had carved out in neighboring Bosnia,” and in so doing, engage in “state-building through genocidal partition?”
Useful in understanding the Croatia situation is the story of Slovene independence, as it fought for independence at the same time Croatia did. The wealthiest of the Yugoslav states, Slovenia was often the odd republic out, having few bonds with the other peoples of Yugoslavia, except for the Yugoslav national identity pushed by the state. Thus, on December 23, 1990, Slovenia held a referendum for independence, with only 5% voting to remain a part of Yugoslavia. In one of the least bloody conflicts in regional history, Slovenia won independence in the Ten Day War, which claimed a mere 62 lives. Neither Milosevic nor the Serbian military leadership supported the Federal plan for a full scale invasion, defending Slovenia’s exit from Yugoslavia. It was not that he saw the disintegration of Yugoslavia as a positive, but that their independence was not a profound threat to the Serbs. Slovenia was (and remains) the most ethnically homogeneous former Yugoslav republic. It had very few Serbs, and would not present major territorial dispute issues for Yugoslavia moving forward.
Croatian independence was an entirely different matter. Before Operation Storm, which ethnically cleansed the region, Krajina had an estimated 430,000 Serbs. Moreover, an independent Croatia would fight with the slowly collapsing Yugoslav state for control of Bosnia, which contained more than 1.3 million Serbs. No neat borders could be drawn, and neither territory was prepared to allow their Serb minority to remain with Yugoslavia. Given the all too recent history of World War II, the Serb minorities in each had profound reason to fear for their safety. This is made especially true by the fact that both the Bosniaks and the Croats quickly returned to their Nazi-era habits. As Djilas notes in the linked Croatian article, almost immediately after the democratic election of Croat leader Franjo Tudjman (an infamous Holocaust denier), the government restored to prominence of the pro-Nazi Ustashe regime and adopted its flag, currency, and anthem. Further, under his direction, Croatia dropped the official use of the Cyrillic script favored by the Serbs, fired many government-employed Serbs, and significantly reduced Serbian parliamentary representation.
Yet, as willing as the Croats were to threaten the Serbs, Milosevic provided little support to his ethnic kin in the rebel republics. The greatest evidence of this is in his handling of Bosnia, where Bosnian Serbs were at war with Croats and Bosniaks for control of their shared homeland. Following the Bosnian Serb rejection of the Vance-Owen Plan, which would have involved the surrender of substantial territory to Herzog-Bosnia (Croatian Bosnia), Milosevic imposed a blockade on the Drina in 1993, cutting off the availability of weapons and other critical resources to the VRS (Bosnian Serb Army). It is worth noting here that NATO did not first bomb Serb territory until 1995, so there was no military pressure for Milosevic to betray his own. As to the Krajina Serbs in particular, Srdja Trifkovic notes in The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, “In Serbia however, [the Republic of Serbian Krajina] was seen as an unwanted economic and burden by Milosevic. To his frustration, the Krajina Serb assembly continued to reject his demands to settle the conflict by accepting the principle of Croatian sovereignty (pgs 217-18).”
Categorically therefore, we can conclude that Milosevic was not a hardliner bent on creating a Greater Serbia. Both his actions and his rhetoric evidence as much. On those grounds alone, one should be prepared to disregard the Kuhner article. If not, his outright hypocrisy should do the trick. Whereas he trivially asserts that Operation Storm, which essentially led to an exodus of all Krajina Serbs not killed in the initial attack, as a proper rebuff against the Serbs, he laments supposedly similar actions taken by the Serbs. Action which he fails to fully explain, and which are not well grounded in history. And, while he faults the HDZ as “fundamentally treasonous” and hopes to see them replaced with “a new conservative party – one that will provide voters with a real patriotic-populist option,” he makes certain to describe Tomislav Nikolic and his Progressive Party (an offshoot of the Radical Party) as “odious,” and their popular support as troubling. More profoundly, he insists that Croatia cease its participation in the ICTY, but never indicates that other countries should do the same, implying that the Serbs should still bow before the court’s authority.
In truth, there is only one phrase in Kuhner’s article which the facts support. Namely, he is correct in describing the ICTY as “a kangaroo court.” Where he is once again in error is in insisting that it is subordinate to the whims of Serb nationalists, and has made a substantial effort to prosecute non-Serbs. The numbers tell a rather different story, as does the fact that Western forces that bombed the Serbs repeatedly (and allied themselves with the Croats, Bosniaks, and Kosovo Albanians) are not being held to account for violation of the same rules of warfare the Serbs are said to have ignored.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Srebrenica: More Myth Than Massacre
Welcome Jihad Watch and De[construct] readers! If you enjoy this article, you may also like: Kosovo – Historical Distortions and Current Status & Bosnia’s Predictable Demise.
As the saying goes, history is written by the winners. And when it comes to the former Yugoslav peoples, that can readily be described as everybody but the Serbs. So it is unsurprising then that they have been vilified throughout the West, labeled as war criminals and butchers whose unmitigated xenophobia caused the collapse of a great multi-ethnic state and the bloodiest set of wars Europe had witnessed in a half century. Yet much as Joe Biden and other Serbophobic politicians who called for the repeated bombing of Serbia during the Wars of Yugoslav Secession might believe that summary to be accurate, the facts simply do not lend themselves to such a conclusion. This may be no better demonstrated than by looking at Srebrenica, which has long been Exhibit A in the court of world opinion in the case against the Serbs.
Officially, the story goes that around 8000 innocent Bosnian Muslims were, without any provocation, slaughtered indiscriminately by genocidal Serbs with revanchist aims, who were unmoved by the civilian status of their victims, or that the area they attacked was to be a safe haven managed by the unbiased and above reproach United Nations. As far as making a case for the bloody violence the Western allies would unleash on the Serbs, that did the job rather well, as it played to the sympathies of the emotionally-driven masses. Of course, with respect to capturing the truth, the governmental line is rather inadequate.
So what exactly is the truth? Alexander Dorin, a Swiss researcher who just recently sent his book “Srebrenica – The History of Salon Racism” to print in German (Serb and English translations are planned in the future) said in an interview that, “After 14 years of investigating events that took place in Srebrenica in 1995 I can attest there was no genocide over Muslims in that enclave — the myth about the massacre of Muslims was invented by the late Bosnian Muslim war leader Alija Izetbegović and then-U.S. president Bill Clinton.” Questionable as that allegation may sound to many, it is important to recall that the United States actively armed Izetbegović and his ragtag jihadist army during the war, applied pressure on Tudjman’s secessionist Croat government to cease his involvement in the Herzeg-Bosnia land theft, and sought actively to create a Bosniak state where one had not traditionally existed (for the land falls within the bounds of historic Serbia). Much of this, especially the sale of arms, was documented heavily even by the liberal American media at the time. And indeed, once the other factual inaccuracies become apparent, it seems quite evident that there was not a Srebrenica massacre, but rather a military engagement that, like many US operations, involved some inadvertant civilian casualties, that has been mythologized to give political cover to the warmongers that led us into battle on intelligence information more questionable than any ever utilized by the Bush administration.
For instance, the real number of dead bodies uncovered was closer to 2000. Some 3000 names of alleged victims were alive enough to vote in the 1996 elections. And many other dead bodies were found to be from previous gun battles or from non-violent ends more than a decade before the event in question. Still unaddressed though is guilt. Among the 2000 dead discovered were a very large number of soldiers who, under the leadership of jihadist Naser Orić killed some 3000 Serbian civilians beforehand. That raises perhaps the most important point: Srebrenica was not a purposeful slaughter of innocent civilians, but an effort by Serb forces to save the lives of their countrymen from an enemy army that had already spilled ample blood, and which was cowardly seeking refuge in protected civilian areas that were supposed to be unarmed, and therefore demilitarized. That there is no record of any military orders relating to civilians, or even mandating the execution of enemy soldiers is telling, in that it makes evident the aim was not to inflict unnecessary brutality, but to take control of the area such that the nearby Serb civilians they were charged with defending could go about their business unmolested instead of living with a paralyzing fear that the destruction of their village was imminent. Indeed, the size and weaponry of the Serb forces present would’ve proven insufficient for anything more grand. The physical evidence confirms as much, for of the dead Muslim soldiers discovered, a good number of them died not from execution, but from untreated wounds that came about during the two-sided military engagement.
All things considered then, we must realize that Srebrenica’s infamy is deserved not because it was home to an act of genocide in post-Holocaust Europe, but because the events that unfolded there amidst a highly misunderstood war have been so grossly distorted that the popular myth has overpowered reality, and in turn has given the Serbs a reputation for neanderthalic brutality and bigotry that is entirely undeserved. Even today, with the violence having long come to an end, the Serbs remain villainized and subject to undue scrutiny because of this and other associated lies. It is therefore important that the record be set straight and that the Serbs cease to be made a pariah simply because they were on the losing side of a war our country made much worse.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Bosnia’s Legitimacy (Or Lack Thereof)
Recently, I wrote an article about the ahistoric and doomed nation of Bosnia, which prompted quite a stir. Unsurprisingly, it compelled one reader to draft a guest editorial weakly attempting to refute my claims or second guess my underlying intentions. I could not let this go unchallenged, but I decided that getting lost in the comment section of another website probably wasn’t the best option in addressing the statements made by Edip Oncu. Thus, what follows are quotes from his article, and my response to them.
Where relevant, I have linked to sources that validate my claims. Feel free to read them if you so desire.
—————
At a time when the United States is celebrating its historical moment of having an African-American President-elect in its own challenge against its racial and religious prejudices, it is disappointing to see a biased article in an international affairs section regarding a European nation’s fate. In Caleb Posner’s column (Student Life, Nov. 5) he discusses Bosnia and Herzegovina’s nationhood or “historical validity” and proposes that the Bosnians should be denied of their independence and statehood. His claims are poorly-based and biased.
Since I write as an editorial columnist, it ought to be unsurprising that my writings do, in fact, reflect my personal opinion. Undoubtedly then, my column is biased, in the same way as something written by Julia Gorin or Jonah Golberg. But that does nothing to undermine the statements of fact contained within the article. And the claim made in Mr. Oncu’s opening paragraph proves invalid, as his subsequent objections are essentially groundless.
Posner attempts to negate the biggest achievement of the Clinton administration, to stop the Serbian genocide against the Bosnian people, and Richard Holbrooke, just because he thinks Bosnia is a breeding ground “for jihad and Islamism” requires serious consideration. (What is Islamism anyways? There is no political movement called Islamism in any kind of literature; did he mean radical Islamists? Or Islamic terrorists?)
Clearly, Mr. Oncu has an agenda. I say this because he speaks of the “Serbian genocide against the Bosnian” people as though it were indisputable fact, and was a one-sided slaughter where only the Serbs were guilty of inappropriate action. The truth is, while the Western media has sided overwhelmingly against Serbia, there is not a factual consensus on either of these issues. Even the most famous incident of the supposed slaughter of the Bosnians is heavily disputed. And even if we accept his claim that such a genocide occurred, no honest individual can claim that the Bosniaks were devoid of any guilt, since we know they had Jihadist militants fighting for them. They even had suicide units.
Now, to answer the parenthetical questions posed, Islamism is the ideological system of an Islamist. That is, one who seeks to modify existing law and culture to impose the values established in the Quran and Islamic law. While the potential for Islamism to become a powerful force has been there since the Turkish occupation of the Balkans centuries earlier, and has on occasion proven a problem, it manifested itself anew in a serious fashion during the war, when Al-Qaida got involved, and continues to this day (even the US recognizes this).
1. Posner writes, “Truth be told, Bosnia has no historical legitimacy.” How can any authority prove the historical legitimacy of a state? Who legitimizes a nation?
Well, a starting point we be a unified culture developed over time by a group of people who have consistently inhabited the region, and integrated the concept of nationhood into their identity. This does not, in any way, describe Bosnia. It plays host to three distinct groups. First and second are the Serbs and the Croats, both of whom have ethnic identities linked closely to neighboring states, and have a historic presence in the region. Third though are the Bosniaks. They are the Islamic individuals who identify themselves as Bosnian, chiefly because they have no other obvious group with whom to associate. It turns out though that Bosniaks are most closely linked with the Turkish (who, as noted in the above links, supplied many of the Jihadists that fought for the pseudo-nation). Indeed, the very term Bosniak is of Turkish origin. Of course, this influence only tells us so much. More important is the constantly changing status of Bosnia, which has historically been under the domain of others, usually linked to Serbia based on ethnic composition.
2.He next argues, “Bosnia is not a nation of historic validity, but a disputed buffer region.” Again, who validates if a nation is historically valid or not?
And is a nation a geographical term determined by buffer zone? Even if you use that ill-definition of buffer zone, Croatia was the buffer zone for centuries between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Empire. If Bosnia is artificial, so are Serbia and Croatia, since all those were created by Jozip Tito after WWII artificially.
Credit must be given to our Turkish friend Mr. Oncu for his attempts to use Serbian and Croatian legitimacy as a defense of Bosnia. Unfortunately, this does not hold up. As established previously, Serbia and Croatia both have legitimacy and historic precedent. This includes having distinct, coherent cultures of their own. The same cannot be said of Bosnia, which takes land that might otherwise belong to its neighbors, and establishes a new state for the purpose of militarily restraining two historic enemies. If Mr. Oncu wishes to draw a parallel, then the nation which Bosnia most closely resembles is the Western European state of Belgium. It too was created with the purpose of undermining the power of neighboring nations that were rising to challenge a foreign power (the UK), and is comprised of two distinct peoples who have little cause for unity.
3.Dayton Accords did not create that federal system as Posner argues; it was a system going far back to Ottoman times which was equally applied by Tito. The Bosnian lands becoming battlegrounds was the guilt of Serbian leaders, who ruthlessly and systematically applied means of genocide to claim majority in Bosnian lands. And all of those leaders went on trial for their part in genocide.
The federal system, AS IT PRESENTLY FUNCTIONS, was a product of the Dayton Accords. Nobody disputes that there were systems somewhat similar applied during previous times. But note that in none of those cases was Bosnia an independent nation free to act as it wishes. The creation of a federal Bosnian country is very much a late 20th century exercise in American political power that closely mirrors the British creation of Belgium.
As for the other claims, I have already taken issue with the general allegations of genocide on the part of the Serbs. So, rather than speak more to that invalid claim, I would instead note that the Bosnians have much to answer for, which our friend has conveniently forgotten about. Moreover, the bias of the ICTY, which is conducting the trials mentioned, is quite clear.
4. Posner claims that “Bosnia would be kept in check; its ability to provide a breeding ground for jihad and Islamism would be reduced by threat of invasion from neighbors.” This sentence explains Posner is against Bosnian independence just because there are Muslim people living in Bosnia. But, what kind of Islam do Bosnians practice, and are there any accounts that Bosnian people support any kind of terrorism? Any reasonable and informed person would know that Bosnian Muslims are generally tolerant and mild—it is one of the reasons they were butchered so easily by the Serbian soldiers.
It requires a special insanity to misconstrue my concerns about Islamism in Bosnia as meaning that I oppose Bosnian independence based exclusively on the population’s Islamic faith. My original article stated quite clearly that I do in fact support an Islamic state in the region following the return of parts of the country to Serbia and Croatia.
Again Mr. Oncu speaks of Islam in Bosnia, and the alleged criminal actions of the Serbs. I could once more note how the Jihadist problem in Bosnia is established fact or how it is they, not the Serbs, who owe us an explanation, even if the international community is unwilling to enforce justice.
My final question is this: Is Posner trying to justify Serbian genocide just because Bosnia has a sizeable Muslim population? What kind of an approach is it that leads to an American sophomore trying to deny a nation from its nationhood and proposing that that nation be swallowed up by its neighbors?
There is nothing to justify, though for the record, I would never endorse genocide based on a population’s religious identity. The issue here though is national validity, of which Bosnia has none. But I concede that present demographics require that an Islamic state remain in between Serbia and Croatia, even if it is the bastard child of the Ottoman empire.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Bosnia’s Predictable Demise
This article, on its original publication website (Studlife.com) was featured on Serbianna’s “News Around the Web” section.
Note: Severe backup in Studlife’s Forum has bumped all regular Friday columns, this one included. Thus, the article below will not be published in print until next week. Do also note that because this was written for a newspaper, length limits constrained my ability to adequately expand upon this subject. I will do so in future writing, especially with regards to the topic of Bosnian jihad.
Last week, Clinton stooge and Dayton Accords author Richard Holbrooke wrote an alarmist editorial that has slowly be gaining international media attention, wherein he expressed great concern over the continued existence of Bosnia. He offered a number of diplomatic remedies that might, according to him, prevent what seems like the otherwise inevitable collapse of another state in the Balkans. The reason behind his article is because, as was noted therein, he regards the continued existence of modern Bosnia as essential. Rather than defend this position, this is an assertion he takes for granted, which ought not be the case. Truth be told, Bosnia has no historical legitimacy, is irrational in construct, and has been destined to fail from the start. While collapse of a state is rarely beneficial, especially in the powder keg of Europe, the way this situation is approached must be grounded in an appreciation for the region’s history and the present day realities, neither of which Holbrooke appears to firmly grasp.
Bosnia is not a nation of historic validity, but a disputed buffer region between the competing Serbian and Croatian nations, each of whom have legitimate claims to substantial portions of the land. Accordingly, it has been of a multi-ethnic character for centuries, and remains so today. However, this fuels substantial conflict in a region where multi-ethnic states have often proven themselves to be breeding grounds for violence and genocide, the overwhelming majority of which has always been directed against the Serbs. In a half-baked effort to pacify this battleground nation, the Dayton Accords created a federal system wherein there is a relatively weak national government, and two much stronger state governments. Republika Srpska hosts the nation’s sizable Serbian population, while the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina hosts the remaining Bosniak and Croat populations.
After many years of brutal warfare and chaos, both sides set national ambitions aside, and worked together to rebuild. But, as seemed fairly obvious to any individual with a grasp of the true nature of the Balkans, this was short lived. Though we have not yet seen war, the rhetoric has become increasingly polarized. Those in the Federation have been pushing for drastic reforms that would shift all of the power into a strong central government, where they would make up the majority of the population, and could thus run roughshod over the rights of the Serbian minority. In turn, this has inspired the highly moderate government of Republika Srpska to extend legitimacy to the idea of ending Bosnia, by way of becoming independent (or more reasonably merging with Serbia), should the need arise.
As the nation exists today, it is a tense union between two unlike factions with highly divergent agendas and interests. So why continue to prop it up? If the only justification is Balkans stability then the answer is not to add to the hasty patchwork keeping Bosnia as one nation, but to proactively develop and implement a more rational and permanent solution. That means separating Republika Srpska from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately, merging the former with Serbia. But what to do with the latter? Allowing it to become independent as is would be dangerous, since quite naturally the Croats would seek reunion with the motherland, and inspire yet another bloody conflict. As it happens, the ethnic divisions are presently such that the Croatian dominated portions could be given to Croatia without much issue, allowing the Bosniaks to have a new state of their own. Wedged between the powers of the region, it would be kept in check, and its ability to provide a breeding ground for jihad and Islamism would be reduced by threat of invasion from the concerned neighbor states (this will be elaborated on in a future column).
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Serbia Should Stand Strong
This article, on its original publication website (Studlife.com) was featured on Serbianna’s “News Around the Web” section.
As recently as 1999, there were NATO troops butchering the Serbian people under the guise of aiding the supposedly innocent Kosovors in their war against the peoples of Serbia. It marked the second time in a decade that ill-informed Western forces disregarded the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia to support the rogue independence forces of the non-Serbians. Never mind that this entailed providing support for the Kosovo Liberation Army, which had ties to al-Qaida, or the jihadi-enhanced rebel forces of Bosnia that were sustained by Wahhabist aid.
In the years leading up to, during and after these events, ample proof was found to disprove the claims of the United States and NATO regarding the events in the region. What little evidence there was of mass killing, ethnic cleansing, or genocide was usually of Serbians by the Islamist militants of Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia or the Croatian forces seeking a return to their nationalist glory days when they embraced Hitler with open arms. One would hope that, in light of such information, the Western powers would issue an apology, or at least cease their abuse and harassment of the Serbian people. But, to do so would require that those in charge not suffer from moral cowardice, a seemingly unreasonable expectation when it comes to political leaders. Instead, two actions were taken.
First, a court was created to try military and political leaders from the region for various war crimes. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was designed, at least in theory, to bring to justice those who had inspired and instigated needless bloodshed in the Balkans. Unfortunately, the court has proven itself lacking in the most crucial aspect: objectivity. With a cost in excess of $135 million a year, this specially-created temporary court has disproportionately indicted and convicted Serbians. Thus far, three-fourths of those either tried or awaiting trial are Serbian. And, when it comes time to issue verdicts, the bias is quite clear. For example, the Bosnian military leader who hid his forces among non-military personnel to provide human shields and bring about media accusations of Serbia slaughtering innocent civilians, Naser Oric, was cleared of all charges. By contrast, Vojislav Šešelj, a Serbian member of parliament who did not have any control over or involvement with the military will almost certainly spend the rest of his life behind bars because he verbally expressed nationalist sentiments and led his party to vote against surrendering to NATO. It is of course noteworthy that he is being held in prison, prevented from assuming the Assembly seat he is entitled to as the top ranking member of the popular Srpska Radikalna Stranka, while the former head of the KLA, and a man therefore directly responsible for overseeing genocide and ethnic cleansing, Hashim Thaçi, is allowed to serve as Prime Minister of the illegally-created state of Kosovo (more on that below).
Second, after recognizing the independence of the rebel regions, they passed a U.N. resolution leaving the future status of Kosovo undecided, but affirming the territorial integrity of Serbia to include said area. Had this been upheld, and the Serbians actually consulted in determining the ultimate outcome in Kosovo, this would’ve been good. Instead, continuing the dishonestly and unwelcome interference in regional affairs that defined her under Bill Clinton, the United States pushed for international recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation. From an American point of view, this was great strategy, as endorsing the creation of a new pro-Western Islamic state in the heart of Europe would lend credibility to a country whose image in the Middle East seemed tarnished beyond repair. Of course, it also violates the very same international legal code cited as justification for getting involved in the region initially, and only inspired increased tension there. But not even John Bolton could convince our government to avoid such a dangerous policy.
Now, after all of this, European nations, including some of the very same countries that aided the United States in the above actions, are pressuring the Serbians to join the European Union. Without an apology, or even a change in attitude toward Serbia, they insist that the tiny nation must choose between membership and isolation from the West. Given its experience with these countries, how can Serbia be expected to choose the former? Whatever benefits might come along with joining the EU are outweighed by the reasonable suspicions of the Serbian people, and the perfectly fair hostility they still have toward the nations that helped turn their homeland into a shell of her former self. So, rather than cave to the pressure of the nations who’ve done nothing but harm to Serbia, it is time that the leftist government stand up to reject entry into the EU and begin the restoration national dignity.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
