R7

"Ain't Gonna Study War No More"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States

Right-To-Life Party, Christian, Anti-War, Pro-Life, Bible Fundamentalist, Egalitarian, Libertarian Left

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Beslan: The Real International Connection



Commentators are desperately trying to make sense of what seem like senseless events in Beslan. But they are attempting to force it into political categories where it simply doesn't fit.

Some have located the school siege in the broader bloody clash between Chechen nationalists and the Russian state. 'There can be no denying the direct link between the Beslan tragedy and the war in Chechnya', wrote Ahmed Zakaev, former deputy prime minister of Chechnya, in the UK Guardian. Others have rushed to blame Beslan on Russian President Vladimir Putin, arguing that the siege is a tragic blowback for his strongman tactics in Chechnya (1).

Yet taking hostage an entire school on the first day of term, surrounding teachers, parents and kids with land mines and high explosives, makes little sense as a nationalist strike against a military aggressor or as a tactic for weakening Russian rule in the Caucasus. Instead, like the Moscow theatre siege of 2002, the school siege looked more like a murderous stunt, an al-Qaeda-esque assault, designed to provoke fear and outrage rather than to realise any discernible political aim.

Too many want to understand Beslan through traditional political and military frameworks. But there is something new going on here. As British Brigadier Aldwyn Wight told BBC2's Newsnight, the Beslan assault had 'no political rationale', and strikingly the hostage-takers exercised 'no restraint' when it came to taking casualties. The kind of violence visited on Beslan is not rooted in Chechnya or in any traditional nationalism; rather, like the attacks of 9/11, Bali, Madrid and elsewhere, this is a rootless terrorism, dislocated from political, military or national norms, with no clear motivation and little compunction about killing civilians. What has given rise to such terror?

It remains unclear who was behind Beslan. In keeping with other recent rootless attacks, nobody has claimed responsibility or explained why they did it. The Chechen authorities deny any involvement in what they describe as a 'savage attack'; former Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov, whom the Russian authorities accuse of masterminding the siege, today offering $10million for information that leads to his capture, has also denounced this attack on 'defenceless children' (2).

For obvious reasons, Russia is keen to situate Beslan within the international 'war on terror', effectively claiming that the siege was the work of al-Qaeda. Putin's al-Qaeda talk is clearly opportunist; his aim is to distract from his repressive policies in Chechnya since he launched a second war there in 1999 (the first war having taken place under Boris Yeltsin from 1994 to 1996).

So Russian officials talk up the alleged mix of foreigners who took part in the attack. A North Ossetian spokesman initially claimed that 10 of the estimated 30 to 35 hostage-takers were Arabs; a Russian official said the hostage-takers were made up of Chechens, Ingush (from the state next to North Ossetia), Arabs, Kazakhs and Slavs. Yet now some argue that there were no Arabs, but rather that the dead hostage-takers' charred faces were mistaken for dark skin. This morning Sergei Ivanov, Russia's defence minister, is quoted as saying that not a single Chechen has been found among the 32 dead terrorists, raising questions about earlier attempts to explain Beslan as a straightforward 'Chechen issue' (3).

But then, the identities of the attackers are not enough to explain why this attack was so ruthless. If a few Arabs did take part in the siege, that alone could not explain the rise of the new terrorism, in Chechnya or anywhere else. There is no doubt that the Chechen separatist movement has become internationalised over the past decade, with Mujihadeen fighters and wannabe jihadists arriving from the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and even Britain and France; and this influx of jihadists has certainly helped to 'Islamicise' Chechen separatism.

There are clear links between the global Mujihadeen and Chechen separatists. It is suspected that Shamil Basayev, leader of a Chechen separatist group, played a part in organising, or perhaps sanctioning, the Beslan school siege. He, like other Chechen separatist leaders, is reported to be a veteran of the Mujihadeen training camps in Afghanistan. These were originally set up with American backing in the 1980s, to train Afghans, Arabs and others to take on the invading Soviet army; US officials estimate that between 1985 and 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage, urban guerrilla warfare and other military tactics in these CIA-sponsored camps.

As the Christian Science Monitor reported this week, 'Ties between Chechen rebels and [Mujihadeen forces] stretch back to the first Chechen war (1994 to 1996)'. But it was only later, during the second war, that Mujihadeen elements started to exercise their influence. 'By 1999, when Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev invaded Russian territory in Dagestan, prompting a second war, it became clear that Islamic radicals dominated Chechen rebel groups', says the CS Monitor (4).

The influx of hundreds of jihadists did much to transform the Chechen conflict

The influx of hundreds of jihadists did much to transform the Chechen conflict, as Loretta Napoleoni notes in Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks. She argues that in the vaccum created by the collapse of the Chechen state following the first war, Mujihadeen 'warlords and armed groups blossomed....modifying Chechnya's secular resistance into radical fundamentalism' (5).

But the arrival of the Mujihadeen into Chechnya is a symptom of a far bigger problem. It is not that Arabs and others arrived in Chechnya and brought everything downhill; rather, the movement of such forces into Chechnya speaks to a broader global instability and collapse of state authority, which has nourished today's disparate terror groups, from Afghanistan to Sudan to the Caucasus.

New terrorism a consequence of Western interventions

The missing link in the debates about terrorism, about the shift from the more politically-oriented violence of the past to the blindly ruthless attacks of today, is the West's foreign interventions of the 1990s. It is by examining these that we can start to make sense of today's seemingly senseless terror. Such interventions, particularly in the Balkans, did much to create the conditions for the rise of the new stateless groups that are so different from old-style nationalist movements.

The end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s gave rise to new rounds of Western intervention in the third world - interventions that were justified as defending beleaguered peoples against ruthless dictators and upholding human rights across the globe, rather than in the selfish, national interests of Western elites. From Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1993, to the dropping of bombs to bring 'peace' to the Balkans in the mid-90s, to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair's Kosovo war of 1999, the battles over territory and influence that defined the Cold War period were replaced with new wars that would, we were told, liberate people from tyranny.

Yet for all its stated aims, humanitarian intervention powerfully destabilised the world order, undermining the institutions that had cohered the international order in the postwar period. At the heart of the new humanitarianism there was a distinct hostility to the sovereign nation state, which had been the building block of international affairs for nearly 50 years. The Clinton administration, king of the humanitarian age, made clear its disdain for the old idea of non-intervention in sovereign states' affairs. In the early 1990s Clinton adviser Strobe Talbott outlined their preferred approach to world affairs: 'Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete. All states will recognise a single global authority.... A phrase that was briefly fashionable in the mid-twentieth century - citizen of the world - will have assumed real meaning by the end of the twentieth century.' (6).

In 1994, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights declared that 'the mission of the United Nations to uphold human dignity and human rights globally transcends national borders' (7). In the new world order, local state authority was out and global interventionism was in.

In undermining state authority, humanitarianism created the space for the rise of non-state actors - and it encouraged their movement across borders. This double impact of Western interventionism reached its zenith in the Balkans.

From the start of the 1990s, outside intervention in the Balkans internationalised local tensions. German recognition of the Croat and Slovene republics in 1991, Russian backing of the Serbs, American recognition of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 and its support for the Bosnian Muslim side - all of this transformed Yugoslavia's internal political differences into heated international issues, paving the way for a prolonged war. Western meddling ruptured Yugoslavia's internal structures, while ensuring that external pressures were increasingly brought to bear on the region. As part of this destabilising process, the USA permitted the movement of Mujihadeen forces from the Middle East and Central Asia to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

In 1993, as documented in David Halberstam's seminal War In a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals, President Clinton gave a 'green light' to the arming of the Bosnian Muslims by Iran and Saudi Arabia, even though this defied a UN embargo against arming any side in the Yugoslav conflict (8). From 1993 to 1996 there was an influx of weapons and military advisers into Bosnia, largely organised by Iranian and Saudi officials. This opened the floodgates to the arrival of Mujihadeen fighters from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and elsewhere, to fight with the Bosnian Muslims. All of this took place under the watchful eye of a Clintonian policy of 'no instruction' - in short, such movements should not be interfered with and, if possible, should be encouraged by a 'green light' (9).

Mujihadeen forces effectively became the armed wing of Western liberal opinion

It is unclear how many Mujihadeen were active in Bosnia. Estimates vary from 600 to 4,000. According to the US House Republican policy committee, in a statement critical of the Clinton administration, issued on 26 April 1996, 'eight flights a month packed with thousands of tons of arms and ammunition either originating in Iran or purchased and shipped with Iranian backing' arrived in Zagreb destined for the Bosnian Muslims and also for Croats; and Iran played a role in 'station[ing] from 3,000 to 4,000 revolutionary guards [Mujihadeen] in Bosnia' (10).

The opening up of Yugoslavia to Mujihadeen forces wrote the script for future movements into Chechnya. Indeed, European intelligence officials claim that Bosnia, where some Mujihadeen forces set up training camps following the end of hostilities in 1996, has become a 'one-stop shop for Islamic militants', for those moving both to and from Chechnya (11).

As Loretta Napoleoni documents in Modern Jihad, in Chechnya in the early 1990s 'the Islamist insurgency had relied mainly on foreign sponsors and domestic smuggling'. By 1995, after the Bosnian experience, Chechen forces were being assisted and armed by 'the International Islamic Relief Organisation, a Saudi-based charity funded by mosques and wealthy donors in the Gulf' and also by Pakistan. During this period, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iran also played a role in 'funding the spread of Islamist armed groups in the region' (12). Iranian and Saudi officials seem to have taken the USA's 'green light' to mean that the sponsorship of Mujihadeen forces across state borders was as legitimate in Chechnya as it was in the Balkans.

The West continued to allow the growth and movement of Mujihadeen forces in Europe towards the end of the 1990s. In the late 1990s, in the run-up to Clinton and Blair's Kosovo war of 1999, the USA backed the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) against Serbia. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post in 1998, the KLA had been 'provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries', and had been 'bolstered by hundreds of Mujihadeen...[some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan'. There were links also between the Western-backed KLA and Chechen separatists (13).

The developments of the 1990s - away from a world organised around state sovereignty and towards encouraging the movement of both state and non-state forces across borders - did much to give rise to today's peculiarly rootless, cross-border movements.

Since 9/11, the US State Department and European officials have fretted about the consequences of the movement of Mujihadeen forces into Europe. The State Department is concerned that Bosnia-Herzegovina has become a 'staging area and safe haven for terrorists', including 'extremists with ties to bin Laden'. Some may now be looking at Russia after the Beslan school siege and asking what the hell they unleashed; they will no doubt support the Russian government's condemnation of foreign and Arab extremists in Chechnya. Yet targeting individual Arabs and attempting to rein in those forces unleashed in the 1990s will do little to bring peace to these regions. The underlying problem is contemporary Western intervention and its corrosive impact, rather than handfuls of mad Arabs.

Western officials wring their hands over the atrocity in Beslan, carried out by a terror group that seems irrational and, as Aldwyn Wight says, without restraint. Yet such terror networks are the product of the West's undermining of its own postwar international framework during the humanitarian era. The old national liberation and nationalist movements reflected a world organised around the principles of sovereign equality and state authority; today's terror networks hold a mirror to the West's self-destructive assault on state sovereignty and the integrity of borders in the post-Cold War world. Where the old world order, for all its vast faults, gave rise to movements that sought to create their own states, the new world order has encouraged the emergence of distinctly stateless groups, not tied to any specific community or political goal.

This goes some way to explaining why today's terrorism seems so much more unrestrained and brutal than earlier political violence. Freed from responsibility to a distinct community, with little ties to national territory or political principles, today's roving terrorist has fewer constraints on his actions - as we witnessed so devastatingly in Beslan. It is because these groups are free-floating agents rather than rooted political actors, reflecting the kind of Western intervention that revived their fortunes in the 1990s, that they can execute what appear to be unthinkable acts. In the absence of conventional political structures that might define and direct a violent campaign, the new terrorists have little compunction about killing or injuring. As Jonathan Tucker of the Monterey Institute of International Affairs has argued, because these terrorists 'are not motivated by political ideology on the far left or right', they are more likely to be 'extremists...with an apocalyptic mindset' (14).

The Mujihadeen was created and financed by the right in the 1980s, by the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government, to take on the Soviets in the Afghan war of 1979 to 1992 - that last gasp of the Cold War. In the 1990s, the baton was passed to the left; Mujihadeen forces effectively became the armed wing of Western liberal opinion, moving across borders to fight what politicians and liberal commentators in the West considered to be 'good wars', from Bosnia to Kosovo and also in Chechnya. It was the internationalisation of local conflicts by Western governments that encouraged the internationalisation of the Mujihadeen, transforming what had been a specific Afghan-based phenomenon into an effectively global force.

The same politicians and commentators who applauded the interventions of the 1990s - some of whom wrote glowing accounts of the 'brave' and 'cool' Mujihadeen in Western newspapers during the Yugoslav and Kosovo wars (15) - are as shocked as everyone else by the Beslan school siege. But perhaps, as well as condemning those who attacked innocent children and their parents, they should also interrogate their earlier support for 'humanitarian intervention' and their continuing support for Western interference abroad.

Brendan O'Neill

3 Comments:

Blogger R7 said...

The logic of the war in Bosnia

The war in Bosnia (and Croatia) in the 1990's had a logical structure. Much of it is only apparent when considering the ethics of the war, and it is ignored by historians. Nevertheless it is possible to construct a model of the war, which explains some apparently incompatible features. Similar issues arose in all the wars following the break-up of Yugoslavia, and similar issues will arise in any future western interventions related to the disintegration of large states. However the model distinguishes the war in Bosnia from war in Afghanistan or Iraq, where a different logic of intervention applies. Revised December 2002, last changes December 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The logic of the war in Bosnia can be seen at three separate levels, which are not in chronological order. The central element is the 'western' intervention, an intervention by liberal market-democratic nation states. It had the purpose of establishing liberal market-democratic nation states on the territory of former Yugoslavia and Albania. In long-term historical perspective the liberal market-democratic nation states are engaged in a global war of conquest, to impose a global order of similar states. The intervention which ended the hostilities - IFOR enforcing the Dayton accords - also partly caused the hostilities.

Within the western states, primarily the NATO allies, a political coalition was built in support of intervention. That coalition appealed to various images, models and visions of Bosnia - wartime and prewar Bosnia. These visions form the second level of the model of the Bosnia war. The most important was the 'Holocaust model'. Promoted by governments and media, and generally accepted by western public opinion, it presented the war as a genocidal war by Serbs against the Bosnian Muslim (Bosniac) population. The war was presented as morally equivalent to Auschwitz - and western intervention as a moral crusade, which no reasonable person could oppose.

Thirdly, there are images and visions of Bosnia, Croatia and the whole region, which are supported by inhabitants of the region itself. These are geopolitical visions: they correspond to a territory. The most important are the nationalisms within former Yugoslavia - classic nationalist movements claiming territory for a nation state, existing or proposed.

The chronological order was different. First, several NATO states supported nationalist secessionist movements within Yugoslavia, especially Croatian separatism. A war in Croatia followed - incidentally diverting attention from the successful Slovenian secession. The war spread to Bosnia, and the NATO powers encouraged atrocities, to justify NATO intervention there. A political coalition for an anti-Serbian intervention was formed in the NATO states, and an occupation force was stationed in Bosnia: first IFOR, then SFOR. Bosnia became a de facto protectorate. Nevertheless Serbia itself was not targeted at that time , and the Republika Srpska (Bosnia Serbs) got half of Bosnia. In the subsequent Kosovo war, Serbia was attacked: the regime collapsed under internal and external pressure. And what was the purpose of this all? The World Bank later explained:


"...greater emphasis must be placed on establishing a viable institutional structure for effective and countrywide governance, as outlined in the Dayton Agreement, and on undertaking the key structural reforms for transforming the old socialist economic structure into a new, market-based economy." (World Bank 1997, p. xii)
In historical perspective, that is the moral crusade which underlies the whole episode: the crusade of the liberal market-democracies, to remake the world in their own image.


The logic of intervention
It is important to understand that 'intervention' also means non-intervention. Intervention in Bosnia did not mean total general intervention: it did not mean that the entire adult population of the planet went to Bosnia to fight. It did not mean that every group on the planet formed its own militia to pursue its own strategy in Bosnia. A 'NATO intervention' means in principle that the NATO intervenes, and only the NATO. In fact, intervening powers actively limit intervention by others in conflict areas - rivalry among intervening powers may be the only reason for an intervention.
Extreme cynicism about the motives for intervention is therefore appropriate, especially if it has the nature of a moral crusade. A true moral crusade would indeed be open to all the world's population - all support for a good cause is welcome. But if the moral crusaders exclude all others from their crusade, then they are evidently interested in their own power, not in their claimed ethical goal.

A good example is the rape camps in Bosnia, which played a prominent part in western media coverage (Burns 1996, 95-96). Whether they ever existed is irrelevant here: the subsequent Yugoslavia Tribunal did bring charges of mass rape, but without claiming that a camp was established for that purpose. Typically, the rape camps were quoted as a justification for western intervention, especially by womens groups. That is to say, the womens groups advocated a US or NATO intervention: they limited their demands for intervention, to intervention by western armies. But if women were angry at mass rapes in Bosnia, why did they not advocate a womens intervention? So far as I know, no person ever advocated the formation of a women's army, to protect women in Bosnia from rape. Yet if rape camps are wrong, then surely their opponents would welcome any intervention to stop them? The obvious explanation for the apparently illogical position is, that the opponents of mass rape were not interested in the fate of the victims, or their rescue. They were primarily interested in constructing a justification for western intervention.

This logic of intervention explains some events in Bosnia, especially the worst single incident of the war, the massacre of Srebrenica. Like many atrocities of the Bosnian war, the massacre was preventable by certain military interventions: however these military interventions were unacceptable to the strongest military powers. The same western allies who ultimately intervened in Bosnia maintained a naval and air blockade of Iraq, although an Iraqi military rescue of the Moslems in Srebrenica would have been possible. In fact hundreds or thousands of military interventions in Bosnia, by all kinds of armed groups, were possible - but not permitted. More generally, the existing global geopolitical order is itself one of millions of possible geopolitical orders. The existing order is maintained against the possible orders, by force. Geopolitical power, such as the power to intervene, consists not simply of the power to conduct an intervention, but the power to exclude the 'alternative worlds'. In the case of Bosnia, the pre-intervention strength of the NATO powers was such, that they could limit the possible major interventions to one: their own intervention. (There were small pro-Moslem forces, including Iranians and mujaheddin, and pro-Serb Russian irregulars).

The course of events in Yugoslavia after 1990 was therefore generally determined by the NATO powers. Their ultimate intervention was simply the final stage in that process. The victim status of the refugees in the Srebrenica enclave, and their ultimate massacre, was constructed in order to justify that intervention: more on that below. The Srebrenica massacre succeeded, where the rape camp stories had failed: it swung public opinion in the NATO states to support intervention. But, in order to make the Srebrenica massacre possible, the NATO powers had to prevent non-NATO interventions. The possible candidates for a rescue mission in Srebrenica were above all Iraq and Iran. Other possible interveners were irregulars from Afghanistan - the core of what became famous as Al-Qaeda - and from Chechnya, Libya, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They could also have lifted the siege of Sarajevo, which had great impact on western public opinion. The victim status of that city was equally constructed by western 'intervention management' - by limiting the interventions of others, while creating the conditions for your own.

Without understanding that intervention also means anti-intervention, it is is impossible to understand western strategy in Bosnia. When the full list of possible interventions is considered, a western strategy of deliberate creation of massacres and sieges becomes visible. Yet that strategy had as ultimate goal an intervention that would end the atrocities. It is the strategy of the arsonist fireman - start fires in order to be the heroic rescuer of the victims.

In the last few years the western market democracies have become more interventionist. That was true before 11 September 2001, and this intervention is military, whatever the names used. Here is what the US Mission to the United Nations listed in 1995 as "humanitarian missions" (quoted in Weiss and Collins, p. 181):

armed forces deliver relief supplies unarmed; armed forces deliver relief and use force for self-defence; armed monitoring of sanctions; armed suppression of air traffic in offending country; air strikes against selected military targets such as artillery or airfields; air, ground or naval actions against the armed forces of one or more combatants; armed forces create safe havens and defend them; armed forces monitor cease-fire; military action to enforce terms not accepted by combatants.
The usual name for "air ground or naval actions against armed forces" is war. Logically all interventions are simply wars of conquest: armed forces arrive, restrict the operations of other armed forces, and retain control of territory. That is what happened in Bosnia.


Western visions of Bosnia
The intervention in Bosnia would not have been possible without a political coalition in its support, inside the intervening nations. That coalition included supporters of various visions and ideals of Bosnia - people with ideas about what Bosnia is, and what it should be. The images of Bosnia and the war were important, because there was no direct military action against the intervening powers which would justify their war - no Pearl Harbour.
Such images can shift and change. Few people in western Europe today believe that Serbs are 'a nation of genocidal rapists', but that is how many people saw them in the mid-1990's. That in turn was a departure from a generally positive attitude to Serbia and Yugoslavia, which had existed since the first Yugoslav state was founded. Compare this quote from a 1923 history of the Balkans (Miller, p. 513):


In 1922 the new King, to the great satisfaction of his subjects, married, and at his wedding with a Roumanian princess the Duke of York represented the British Royal Family. Never have the ties between Great Britain and the Serbs been so close as since the late war, when they fought side by side. Many Serbs found a refuge in England; many were educated at Oxford, and to Englishmen Servia is no longer an unknown land.
The idea of a Serbia full of Oxford graduates is clearly absurd, but it shows how positive the western image of the first Jugoslavija was, at the time. The point is, it was an image, no more than an image - and so was the later image of Serbia as anti-western. Predictably, after the fall of Milosevic, western media rediscovered Serbia's 'pro-western tradition'.

The rape camps and other atrocity claims are an example of how images are politicised, used, and discarded as necessary. The high-profile anti-rape activists spoke of 'Serb rapes', or at least rapes by Serbian forces. But no-one campaigned against 'male atrocities in Bosnia', no-one spoke of 'male rapes' although the alleged and real rapists were men. No-one spoke of 'monotheist atrocities in Bosnia' - although Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim soldiers are all monotheists. Visions of the war were created, intended to secure military intervention by third parties, and to impose a plan for the post-war period. If you want to secure a NATO intervention against Serbia, it is useless to complain about rapes by Brazilian drug dealers, or about general male attitudes to women. A 'Serb rape camp' is a specific justification for a specific anti-Serbia war - suspiciously so.

In retrospect, most of the images and terminology which dominated western media coverage of the war in Bosnia were specific to that period, and were later forgotten. (New reports of rape camps, this time in Zimbabwe, appeared in western media as relations with the Mugabe regime deteriorated). Not all the images and visions were negative, not all were atrocity stories, but many were later abandoned, which suggests they had at least one thing in common: fabrication.

Two groups outside Bosnia took the Bosnia as an important symbol: supporters of multiculturalism in immigrant societies like the United States, and Islamists who wrongly identified the war as a Christian attack on Islam. The multiculturalists equated Bosnia with their own societies, and equated some parties in the war (usually Serbia) with the opponents of multiculturalism in their own societies. (Often they spoke of 'multiculturalism' as ideal, but used the word 'multi-ethnic' for Bosnia, possibly because this was standard academic usage).


Multicultural Bosnia
It is irrelevant for the vision of multicultural Bosnia, whether it actually existed. However, it is relevant that most of its supporters identified it with the policies, or at least the potential polices, of the Sarajevo government during the war. They feared that ethnic cleansing was directed against that ideal - the conscious replacement of a multicultural by a monocultural society. For an example of the use of Bosnia as model, see the Community of Bosnia Foundation website, apparently unchanged since 1997. The CBF works for "culturally pluralistic multi-religious Bosnia". It is a US-American interpretation of what the problem is - in cultural-religious terms - and a proposed solution to that perceived problem.
Support for 'multicultural Bosnia' was often accompanied by the accusation of genocide, as in Norman Cigar's book Genocide in Bosnia. Usually, genocide is defined as violence against an ethnic group, not against a social model such as multiculturalism. Nevertheless, that claim is closer to the original intent of the term 'genocide'. The word was first used by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 for activities directed against nation states, not against ethnic groups. His book is about Nazi policies in occupied Europe, yet it does not claim a genocide against a Jewish people. The perception of the Holocaust as the archetype ethnic genocide, dates from well after the Second World War. The word genocide originally meant something like: 'harsh occupation policies intended to subdue a nation state, weaken its identity, and destroy its own administration'. The word later acquired a meaning once described by a separate term: ethnocide. So despite current usage, it is accurate to define an attack on a Bosnian nation state, with a national identity defined by multi-ethnicity, as genocide. On this definition, however, mass murders of Muslims for being Muslim, are not part of the 'genocide'. Nor are murders of Croats or Serbs, for which Cigar invented the euphemism "spin-off war crimes". But such a Bosnian state never existed anyway. The Sarajevo government was primarily, and increasingly, a national government of an ethnic-Muslim national movement, claiming increasingly a Bosniac identity (options 8 and 9 in the list below). It was not a multiculturalist association being persecuted for its multiculturalism.

What however if reality did match the model? The implicit assumption of the multi-ethic model is that it can legitimise a state. This is why the Sarajevo government (and the SDA in particular) appealed to it, even though suspicious of it. What if the Sarajevo government had, as Norman Cigar claims (p. 122), a "stated and operative goal of a multi-confessional secular state"? This too is a nationalist claim, since it is linked to the inhabitants of a territory as a pre-existing group: the proposed secular state had to be in Bosnia, not Australia. In effect the qualities are claimed to be Bosnian characteristics, Bosnian in the sense of option 7 in the list. The supporters of this model did consistently refer to a specific 'Bosnian tradition' of multi-ethnicity. Regardless of whether it is true or not, this claim can not justify a nation, justify its claim to territory, or justify the exclusion of others from that territory. It is a stereotypical national identity, comparable to 'British fairness' or 'Dutch tolerance'.

Some of the claims made by supporters of multicultural Bosnia, imply a logic of enforced multiculturality. Is it for instance right, to deport Scots and Paraguayans to Antarctica, in order to create a multi-ethnic or multicultural Antarctica? If you believe in enforced relocation of refugees in Bosnia, to create artificially multi-ethnic areas, then you would have to accept this logic also. If there is a moral obligation to create multicultural areas, then why not create them everywhere, even in Antarctica? However, if there is a specific Bosnian reason to create them in Bosnia, then why appeal to a general principle?

The truth is that the principles of multiculturalism form a universalism, not a particularism. They are not specific to Bosnia: it was used as a role-model territory, as exemplar. What are these principles, in general terms? The philosophy of multi-culturalism is that human beings are primarily carriers of a transgenerational culture. They are believed to have a moral obligation to act as carriers, and therefore to protect heritage. Multiculturalism promotes the parallel co-existence of cultures, without being assimilated to each other. Inter-culturalism makes similar claims about humans as culture-carriers, but claims there is a duty to learn from other cultures, and to incorporate them. A multi-cultural society preserves a plurality of cultures, an inter-cultural society facilitates syncretism - the fusion of cultures. All forms of 'culturalism' see the individual as member of a transgenerational community: when they claim territory for these communities, these ideologies belong to the general category nationalist.

Morally there is little difference between a territorial claim on the basis of ethnicity, and a claim on the basis of multiculturalism, or multi-ethnicity, or interculturality. All of them can also serve as legitimation for violence. Here is the opening of Donia and Fines book on Bosnia:


On April 6 1992, a crowd of demonstrators gathered in front of the Bosnian Parliament building in Sarajevo to demonstrate for peace in Bosnia and Hercegovina....Directly across the street, form the upper floors of the ultra-modern Holiday Inn built for the 1984 Winter Olympics, heavily-armed Serbian militiamen fired randomly into the crowd and marked the demise of the few remaining hopes that moderation and compromise might prevail in Bosnia and Hercegovina....The victims were unarmed civilians who hoped for the preservation of a multiethnic society who hoped for the preservation of a multiethnic Bosnian society....the perpetrators were nationalist extremists bent on destroying Bosnia's multiethnic society and replacing it with the national supremacy of a single ethnic group, in this case the Serbs."
The rest of the book is an immoderate and uncompromising demand for support for a multiethnic Bosnia, if necessary by military intervention. Multi-ethnicists and multiculturalists can also be fanatical or violent in pursuit of their ideal - after all they are convinced of its absolute truth. The juxtaposition created by Donia and Fines (and many others) is false. They claim that the response to ethnic cleansing is the enforcement of a multicultural or multi-ethnic solution. They imply, that anyone who opposes multiculturalism approves ethnic cleansing: this is false. Fanatic inter-culturalists might open fire on a multiculturalist demonstration, without any intention of promoting ethnic cleansing. There are many possible social ideologies about culture. It is possible to have no culture at all, or to substitute multi-lingualism for multiculturalism: multi-religious and inter-religious models are also possible.

All of these are logical alternatives to both multiculturalism and mono-culturalism, and all of them can logically form the basis of a territorial claim, comparable to that of nationalists. The implied moral superiority of the multiculturalists is their own invention. In practice, the supporters of the fictional multicultural Bosnia formed part of the political coalition for a western military intervention - which had as its goal the establishment of liberal market-democratic nation states, rather than a multiculturalist utopia. The foreign policy elite of the intervening powers is satisfied with a non-multicultural option:


"Along SFOR's Route Arizona...a market has emerged spontaneously...patronized primarily by Serbs and Muslims, but Croats as well come from afar...In the microcosm the Arizona market represents may lie a clue to building a functioning multiethnic society in Bosnia....Bosnia can survive as a state in a loose confederation if the international community, led by the United States, explicitly acknowledges the right of the ethnic factions to live among their own and govern themselves" (Charles Boyd in 'Foreign Affairs', 1998)
That is almost certainly the tone for the coming years - and with new conflicts elsewhere, NATO forces in Bosnia will be reduced. The de facto ethnic partition of Bosnia will simply be accepted by the intervening powers, probably without publicity.

Bridge Bosnia: nation of transnationality
One of the most specific visions of Bosnia was the bridge metaphor. It probably originated in the threat to the old bridge at Mostar, which was already familiar as a a tourist-poster image of Bosnia. The bridge was destroyed by Hercegovina Croat forces, and the video of its collapse became a recurring feature of TV coverage of the war. But not just that: it soon became an icon of multicultural Bosnia. It symbolised Bosnia as a link between others, notably Croatia and Serbia. The logic is simple and geopolitical: the bridge metaphor is used to legitimise national and ethno-national claims - for instance in this article from Pogrom: Minderheiten sind lebenden Brucken: Beitrittskandidaten und Altmitglieder der EU sollen sie Fördern. Those who used the bridge metaphor of Bosnia generally favoured an intervention in support of the Sarajevo government, to establish a Bosnian state. (After the war, the UNESCO supervised the reconstruction of the bridge, but it does not serve as a unifying symbol).
Bridges were a symbol of intercultural or trans-national links, long before the war in Bosnia. The symbolism appeals to people with syncretic or pan-syncretic beliefs, and to supporters of global ethics. The Earth Charter, for instance, tells people to "be the heart of a network of global citizens, be a bridge for dialogue between civilisations, be a beacon lighting the way to a century of life". Smail Balic, in a 1992 book, called Bosnia "Europe's bridge to the Islamic world". That is at first sight in opposition to Huntington's fault-line thesis, but it is based on the same civilisational theory of world history.

However, when the metaphor is applied to a single nation, it is no more than a nationalist claim. It has emotional appeal, until you think about it - typical for nationalist propaganda. Nobody would justify the Sicilian Mafia as 'a bridge between the Chinese triads and the Colombian drug cartels' - even if it did in fact have that function. The logic is false: being a bridge justifies nothing, and no-one. A nation can not legitimately claim territory by saying it is a bridge - or a plant, or a person, or any of the other metaphors used by nationalists.

Western media sometimes saw the destruction of the Mostar bridge as a real-life validation of the metaphor - as if the Croatian artillerymen were enraged by multicultural political correctness. In reality, the bridge was shelled as an Ottoman symbol, not as a symbol of interculturality. The interpretation of the shelling as an attack on bridge-building between cultures comes, so far as I know, only from outside Bosnia. The fake emotion in these opening lines from Dona Kolar-Panov's book is an example of this deliberate mis-identification.


"Bridges, like no other structures built by people, symbolise meeting. Meetings of river banks, mountains, cities, but above all meetings of peoples, of cultures. I saw the empty space where the Mostar Bridge used to stand on the television news that very night when my friend called and I was still in a state of shock over the death of a bridge." (Dona Kolar-Panov 1997, p. 205).
The Mostar bridge also appears on the cover of Donia and Fines book, and at the Community of Bosnia Foundation homepage. A book by Michael Sells (co-founder of that organisation), speaks of "a bridge betrayed". Yet few people have any emotional attachment to bridges as such. In the 25 years before the war in Bosnia, 15 000 km of railways were closed in the EU: it is a reasonable assumption that hundreds of bridges were demolished. Much of the local rail network in Bosnia was also closed, by 1980. I never saw claims that this was a cultural genocide, or similar moral evaluations.

To summarise the pseudo-ethics: there are five claims implicit in the Mostar bridge metaphor and its use in the west. First that bridges can symbolise multi-ethnicity, second, that this applies to specific bridges only, third, that the Mostar bridge was one of these, fourth, that this symbolism was generally accepted in Bosnia, and fifth, that this was the reason it was attacked. When the elements of the bridge metaphor are listed in this way, its absurdity is soon evident.


Islamic Bosnia
The second influential 'model Bosnia' is that of Islamic Bosnia. Some Islamists outside Europe saw a future Bosnia as an Islamic bridgehead in Europe, cultural or military. In the opposite sense, some Muslims in Europe saw it as an example of an enlightened European Islam - a vision which also appealed to many non-Muslim European intellectuals. Islam and its relation to European values are now even more of an issue than in the mid-1990's, but Bosnia is no longer quoted in that debate.
Many Islamists would never support an 'Islamic Republic of Bosnia' anyway, because they oppose any sub-division of the Islamic world. (See this example of explicit Islamist anti-nationalism: The evils of nationalism). The most radical Islamists reject all existing states entirely, and support a global Khilafa, caliphate. So although they came to fight in Bosnia, and saw that as 'Jihad', that did not mean they supported the Sarajevo government, or any possible Bosnian state. Instead 'Islamic Bosnia' is a subtractive ideal: it came into existence because people looked at Bosnia and saw only the mosques. That idea of Bosnia inspired the limited Islamist intervention - an intervention in support of fellow Muslims, rather than for a future Islamic Republic of Bosnia.Nevertheless, Bosnia before the war was not an Islamic society with a Moslem majority. No doubt the media in Islamic countries did present Bosnia in this way: it was easy to find damaged mosques, implying an attack on an Islamic society. Yet there were also many damaged churches: simple selection could switch the image of the nature of the war. A similar Islamic identification of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo as 'fellow-Muslims' emerged during the Kosovo war. Again it was not accurate, since many ethnic Albanians are Catholic - but that is not relevant for the emotional identification.


Ethnic cleansing, age-old ethnic strife, and political manipulation
There were a large number of negative images of Bosnia, some of them recurrent media stereotypes. Here too, an examination of the logic often indicates the purpose behind the stereotype.
'Ethnic cleansing' was a recurrent theme in the coverage of the war. It seems at first sight simple: intolerant people seek to purify their communities, and drive out unwanted elements. Nationalists in Bosnia, especially Serb nationalists, were driven by a will to purify, according to the stereotype. The standard mythology about ethnic cleansing is restated by Andrew Bell-Fialkoff (p. 281) and summarised by Katherine Verdery:


"Notions of purity and contamination, of blood as carrier of culture, or of pollution are fundamental to the projects of nation-making." (Verdery 1996, p. 230)
Yet there is no historical evidence for a general will to purify communities. Expulsions are highly specific and relate to ethnic groups only, even in allegedly pre-national states. It seems absurd to think of of footballers driving out swimmers by force, and indeed 'sport cleansing' is totally unknown. So is age cleansing, occupation cleansing, and religious cleansing (unless religion coincides with ethnicity, as in the case of the Jews). If there were an underlying ideal of purity, why should it be blind to all except ethnic 'impurity'? Nationalism does not have an ideal of absolute purity: nationalists consistently claim, that all classes, sectors and professions are united in 'the people'. Most nationalists even claim, that the nation unites all religions: those nationalists who do not, rarely expel on religious grounds. Expulsions on ethnic grounds show that only the ethnic group is regarded as fundamental: that is the only impurity that counts. But even then, most of the worlds ethnic groups are not victims of expulsion: the general fault of nationalism is inclusion and assimilation, not exclusion.

The stereotype of ethnic cleansing is part of a wider ideological construction. Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia were characterised by extraordinary contrasts in the degree of ethnic segregation, long before the war. At a local and municipal scale, some areas are mixed, but some are almost mono-ethnic. It is however wrong to assume, that this is the result of the exercise of force and state power. It is especially misleading for people in immigrant societies, to project their immigration controversies back into the Bosnian past. Because anti-immigration politicians now call for ethnic homogeneity, that does not mean that ethnically homogenous areas were ruled by anti-immigrant racists, at some time in the past. If, for instance, rural Hercegovina was 99% Croat (no exaggeration) then the false logic implied that some Croatian 'Le Pen' had earlier expelled non-Croatian immigrants and limited immigration. However, there was no such ruler - and no 'immigration policy' in the present meaning, until the 20th century.

Ethnic homogeneity in the present, does not necessarily imply past expulsion. It may be the result of settlement on poor land, with no competing migration - as in Iceland. It may be the result of slow assimilation in a poor region with very little in-migration - the probable explanation in Hercegovina. The ideological construction suggests that pre-war Bosnia was similar to modern liberal-democratic immigrant societies, Canada for instance. No such society ever existed in the region, but the ideological construction served to equate the 'ethnic cleansers' with the anti-immigrant right within liberal-democratic states. It served to equate opposition to NATO intervention with racist anti-immigrant policies - a useful political weapon against left-wing opponents of intervention. And it also implied that a Canadian-style multiculturalism must be imposed on the Balkans - an unreal prospect in itself, but again a legitimising argument for military intervention. In retrospect, it was all very hypocritical. Even at the time, all the NATO member states operated rigid immigration controls themselves. Most have become more closed and more mono-cultural, since then. Even Canada and Australia are only relatively speaking 'immigrant societies' - the vast majority of the population are native-born and assimilated.

The stereotype of 'political manipulation' was also familiar in media coverage of the war, and it had serious academic and political support. Ian Brough-Williams writes (in Burns 1996, 23):


"...unscrupulous nationalists in Serbia and Croatia have mythologised the past (and, by extension, revived historical insecurities relating to national identity and geography) in order to build power bases for themselves in the political vacuum following Tito's death...."
That is a myth presented as de-mythologisation - no ethnic rivalry until politicians created it in 1989. Here is the BBC-Financial Times version (Silber and Little, pp. 209-210):

"National dreams - the emergence of ethnic parties and leaders - did not reflect ancient hatreds as was claimed later by some sectors of the frustrated international community while it struggled to comprehend the war. But the popularity of exclusively ethnic parties did serve to highlight the weakness of republican institutions when confronted by different national identities. They also illustrated a tradition of separate communities growing up side by side, while preserving - at least in part - their distinct identities. A fundamental difference among the three national groups was the collective perception of their historical experience.....For decades these contradictory perceptions had co-existed, but, by 1990, the rise of Serbian nationalism had turned history into the purveyor of hatred."
In this inverse conspiracy theory, no-one wanted war: they were manipulated by politicians, Milosevic especially. That assumes an extraordinary power of politicians, to hypnotise millions of people. It also assumes that national emotions are a product of this hypnosis. The theory absolves people from moral responsibility, at the same time as stereotyping them. Racist assumptions about 'emotional southern peoples' probably underlie the success of this theory among western media and academics.

Others rejected the stereotype of 'age-old ethnic strife' primarily because it hindered US intervention. Wayne Bert's 1997 criticism of Robert Kaplan in The Reluctant Superpower is an example:


"A book by Robert D. Kaplan, Balkan Ghosts, has been credited with a decisive influence on President Clinton's thinking on the advisability of US intervention in Bosnia. The book has been criticized for its sensational approach and lack of perspective on the problem of inter-ethnic relations in the Balkans. Reading it without any background on Yugoslav questions, one could certainly take away the impression that the Balkans is a uniquely conflict-ridden place with almost no tradition of negotiation or peaceful resolution of dispute. This travel account is an interesting read, but not perhaps the best guide to formulating foreign policy in the Balkans." (Bert 1997, p. 103)
The idea that there was no endemic conflict, paralleled the idea that politicians had hypnotised the populace into war. However it is equally wrong to claim centuries of peace in the area. There was a civil war of great intensity in occupied Yugoslavia, 1941-1945. There were violent nationalist movements: there was violence during the formation of most of the nation states in the region. There is also a tradition of rural violence, which intensified during periods of geopolitical instability. Mart Bax describes some of this background, in his book on the pilgrim village Medjugorje in Hercegovina (Bax, 1995).

Different and even contradictory models all contributed to the final political coalition, in support of NATO intervention. Their appearance in the political life of the NATO member states is related to the construction of that coalition. If the Balkans is a violent place ridden with ancient conflicts, then that was an argument for intervention to 'stop the bloodshed'. If the Balkans are an essentially peaceful place with a multicultural tradition, then that was an argument that a NATO intervention will be successful. And so on: the opponents of intervention were overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of the pro-intervention rhetoric. The end result was an intervention in Bosnia - and a later war for Kosovo. Yet almost all the arguments, which seemed so important at the time, have now disappeared from the public sphere, and returned to academic obscurity. Who cares, in 2002, whether there is a tradition of rural violence in Hercegovina?


Bosnia as the New Holocaust
By far the most significant model of the war in Bosnia, the one which contributed most to military intervention, was the idea that a second Holocaust was taking place in Bosnia. In this New Holocaust, the ethnic Moslems had the role of the Jews, and 'the Serbs' the role of the Nazis. By implication, this cast any intervening power in the role of the liberators of concentration camps. It cast the opponents of NATO intervention in the role of Nazi collaborators and apologists - and that was often said explicitly, especially in Germany.
Many people in the West sincerely believe in a wider 'Holocaust model of history'. In this philosophy, liberal market democracy constitutes the alternative - the only alternative - to a world of totalitarian atrocities. Its supporters believe that the avoidance of this 'Holocaust World' fully justifies liberal democracy and the free market - including any injustice which results from their operation. The Holocaust model is intended to confer an absolute and unquestioned moral superiority on the market democracies, and on the values of the Atlantic alliance. In reality, liberalism is as much a killing machine as Nazism: at the same time as the wars in ex-Yugoslavia began, the transition to a market economy in Russia caused an excess mortality of three million deaths. It is no surprise that the supporters of Atlantic market democracy were prepared to kill in Bosnia as well.

The Holocaust model is the key to the events at Srebrenica. Since there was no mass killing corresponding to the model, one was staged at Srebrenica. There is a story that President Clinton told Bosnian President Izetbegovic, that a massacre of at least 5 000 people was necessary, in order to generate western public support for an intervention. There is no hard evidence for the story, but there is no reason to doubt it either, for the simple reason that it was true. Even without such an explicit remark, both men must have known that massive Serb atrocities could only help their political goals. That applies to the NATO as well, and to the pro-intervention lobby within each NATO state: they all had an interest in facilitating atrocities.

In chronological order, the construction of the Srebrenica massacre began with western support for the Bosnian cause, after the war in Bosnia begun. That meant support for the Sarajevo government and their generally Bosniac nationalism, but it was ideologically justified in terms of the western images of Bosnia - multicultural, transnational, liberal, tolerant. It included support for the Bosnian nationalist media, such as the Sarajevo newspaper Oslobodenje, and a limited amount of covert military aid.

With this aid, the Sarajevo government was encouraged to extend its military control to areas it could not permanently defend. Some were enclaves accessible only through corridors in mountainous areas, with roads blocked in winter. Western mediators further encouraged the Sarajevo government to hold these enclaves, by suggesting that they could later be exchanged for full control of Sarajevo. This was in fact later agreed at Dayton. Of these enclaves, the most inaccessible was Srebrenica, a small town with a 'Moslem' majority, in a thinly-populated Serb-majority region bordering on Serbia itself. In 1993, the United Nations declared Srebrenica a 'safe area'. The UN was the nominal authority for western intervention in Bosnia, but the de facto military and political power rested with the NATO powers, operating under UN mandate. The non-NATO forces serving with the UN in Bosnia had nothing to say about policy.

The Sarajevo government had already been encouraged to hold the enclave: now the Moslem population was encouraged to stay there also, although they were a target for atrocities. The UN Protection Force, UNPROFOR, at first stationed Canadian troops in the enclave. In 1994 they were replaced by three successive Dutch UN batallions - DUTCHBAT . The political responsibility for the stationing of DUTCHBAT lay primarily with the new coalition government led by Wim Kok. The new defence minister, Joris Voorhoeve, was a former director of the Clingendael Institute - an aggressively pro-western and pro-intervention think-tank linked to the Netherlands foreign ministry. The commander of the third DUTCHBAT was Lt-Colonel Thom Karremans.

From his arrival, Karremans, on the instructions of Kok and Voorhoeve, followed a strategy aimed at creating an atrocity - the 'Holocaust' to justify the intervention. The population was encouraged to stay where they were, a sitting target. The local Bosniac militia, led by Naser Oric, was allowed to commit atrocities against the Serb population in the surrounding areas, knowing that this would provoke a Serb attack on the enclave. (The main Serb offensive was directed against Sarajevo). Karremans deliberately advertised to the Serb forces, that he had insufficient forces to withstand any assault on the enclave.

Although the Moslem population in the enclave was in acute danger, and nominally under Dutch protection, Premier Kok refused them Dutch citizenship, or even refugee status. At the same time, naval and air forces of the western coalition, including Dutch naval forces, blockaded Iraq - cutting off any rescue attempt. Naval forces in the Adriatic, and air power operating from NATO bases, blocked any other 'Islamic' rescue attempt. In effect, Karremans ran a prison camp, full of people waiting to be massacred. He was not there to protect the population: he was there to arrange their deaths at the hands of Serb forces, and he did that. In 1995, Bosnian-Serb units led by General Ratko Mladic overran the enclave and massacred several thousand, mainly men of military age. Naser Oric and his men conveniently escaped. So did DUTCHBAT - they left in convoy to Zagreb, to join a victory celebration attended by Wim Kok and Crown Prince Willem-Alexander. The celebration showed a racist contempt for the lives of the victims, and this differential valuation of human life is characteristic of the democracies. If thousands of Dutch citizens had been massacred, there would have been no question of a victory party. That racism still affects Dutch elite attitudes: a parliamentary enquiry into Srebrenica, which reported in January 2003, did not hear a single Bosnian witness.



Amsterdam, 31 oktober 2003
Arrondissementsparket Arnhem
t.a.v. mr J. Th. de Wit, Hoofdofficier van Justitie
Walburgstraat 2-4
6811 CD Arnhem


verzoek om strafvervolging (aangifte)
Ik verzoek je om oud-premier Wim Kok en de beroepsmilitair T. Karremans te vervolgen wegens genocide, subsidiair dood door schuld, gepleegd in en om de enclave Srebrenica in 1995. De val van Srebrenica werd om geopolitieke redenen geënsceneerd door de westerse machten, en de slachtingen die daarbij plaatsvonden, waren zo voorspelbaar, dat er sprake is van medeschuld van de westerse politieke leiders. Als enige troepen-leverancier voor de VN in de enclave, speelde Nederland een sleutelrol. Kok heeft op de volgende wijze opzettelijk aangestuurd op de val van de enclave, met bijbehorende gruweldaden:

1. hij heeft namens Nederland de indruk gewekt dat de enclave Srebrenica verdedigd zou worden, en zodoende de regering in Sarajevo aangemoedigd, om het niet op te geven of te ruilen

2. hij zelf als opdrachtgever, en Karremans als commandant van de troepen in de enclave, hebben toegestaan dat de Moslem-milities onder leiding van Naser Oric de omliggende Servische gebieden aanvielen, en daar gruweldaden pleegden. Hierdoor werd een Servische tegenaanval op den duur onvermijdelijk.

3. hij heeft belet als premier dat troepen uit Moslem-landen, met name Irak, de enclave bereikten. Onder Kok heeft Nederland namelijk ook schepen geleverd voor de blokkade van Irak. Door deze blokkade was het onmogelijk voor Saddam Hussein om als 'redder van de Bosnische Moslems' op te treden, wat hij anders graag had gedaan. De regime van Saddam Hussein was wreed, maar dat was de regime van Jozef Stalin ook, toen zijn troepen Auschwitz bereikten in 1945. Wie een redding opzettelijk belet - bijvoorbeeld omdat hij vindt dat de eer van de redder slechts toekomt aan democraten - is medeverantwoordelijk voor wat de niet-geredde personen overkomt, en moet daarvoor goede gronden hebben.

4. de troepen onder Karremans en Kok lieten de enclave onder controle van Oric en anderen, die een evacuatie tegenwerkten, ook al had dat in het begin nog gekund. In ruil voor een Servische Bosnië had het zeker gekund, maar dat was voor de westerse machten niet aanvaardbaar, dus lieten ze de bevolking van Srebrenica liever afslachten. De Nederlandse troepen hielden de civiele bevolking feitelijk gevangen, in afwachting van hun dood.

Het was zeker in 1995 de bedoeling, dat Srebrenica zou vallen, om een westerse ingrijpen te rechtvaardigen, en deze strategie is gelukt. De verantwoordelijkheid in deze zaak is uiteraard diffuus: andere westerse machten en de VN als organisatie speelden ook een rol. Dat vermindert de schuld van Kok en Karremans niet.





In the end, Bill Clinton, Wim Kok and other NATO leaders had their 5 000 dead, the cynical 'Holocaust-in-Bosnia' lobby had its Holocaust, opposition to intervention collapsed. The Dayton accords (November 1995) led to the stationing of an occupation force, and the creation of a western protectorate in Bosnia. The governors of the protectorate decreed a free market economy, and a liberal democracy. The first has proved easier to implement than the second: the population continues to vote along ethnic lines, so the model multi-ethnic democracy is still deferred.

10:41 PM  
Blogger R7 said...

Mujahideen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Mujahideen (also transliterated as mujahedeen, mujahedin, mujahidin, mujaheddin etc.) literally translates from Arabic as "strugglers". Mujahid means "struggler". Arabic words always return to a three letter word, mujahedeen roots to Ju-h-D (which means effort). Mujahid is someone who exerts effort or struggles, Mujahedeen is simply the plural. There is no "holy" or "warrior" meaning within the word, although it is widely explained to be a "Holy Warrior" for various reasons.

The most well-known, and feared, mujahideen were the opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989 and the following civil war. These Mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (under the presidencies of President Jimmy Carter and President Ronald Reagan), Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. [1] (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/10/1425222)

Afghanistan's resistance movement was born in chaos, spread and triumphed chaotically, and has not found a way to govern differently. Virtually all of its war was waged locally. As warfare became more sophisticated, outside support and regional coordination grew. Even so, the basic units of mujahideen organization and action continued to reflect the highly segmented nature of Afghan society.

In the course of the guerilla war, leadership came to be distinctively associated with the title, "commander." It applied to independent leaders, eschewing identification with elaborate military bureaucracy associated with such ranks as general. As the war produced leaders of reputation, "commander" was conferred on leaders of fighting units of all sizes, signifying pride in independence, self-sufficiency, and distinct ties to local community. The title epitomized Afghan pride in their struggle against an overwhelmingly powerful foe. Segmentation of power and religious leadership were the two values evoked by nomenclature generated in the war. Neither had been favored in ideology of the former Afghan state.

Olivier Roy estimates that after four years of war there were at least 4,000 bases from which mujahideen units operated. Most of these were affiliated with the seven expatriate parties headquartered in Pakistan which served as sources of supply and varying degrees of supervision. Significant commanders typically led 300 or more men, controlled several bases and dominated a district or a sub-division of a province. Hierarchies of organization above the bases were attempted. Their operations varied greatly in scope, the most ambitious being achieved by Ahmed Shah Massoud of the Panjshir valley north of Kabul. He led at least 10,000 trained troops at the end of the Soviet war and had expanded his political control of Tajik dominated areas to Afghanistan's northeastern provinces under the Supervisory Council of the North.

Roy also describes regional, ethnic and sectarian variations in mujahideen organization. In the Pashtun areas of the east, south and southwest, tribal structure, with its many rival sub-divisions, provided the basis for military organization and leadership. Mobilization could be readily linked to traditional fighting allegiances of the tribal lashkar (fighting force). In favorable circumstances such formations could quickly reach more than 10,000, as happened when large Soviet assaults were launched in the eastern provinces, or when the mujahideen besieged towns, such as Khost in Paktia province. But in campaigns of the latter type the traditional explosions of manpower--customarily common immediately after the completion of harvest--proved obsolete when confronted by well dug-in defenders with modern weapons. Lashkar durability was notoriously short; few sieges succeeded.

Mujahideen mobilization in non-Pashtun regions faced very different obstacles. Prior to the invasion few non-Pashtuns possessed firearms. Early in the war they were most readily available from army troops or gendarmerie who defected or were ambushed. The international arms market and foreign military support tended to reach the minority areas last.

In the northern regions little military tradition had survived upon which to build an armed resistance. Mobilization mostly came from political leadership closely tied to Islam.

Roy convincingly contrasts the social leadership of religious figures in the Persian and Turkish speaking regions of Afghanistan with that of the Pashtuns. Lacking a strong political representation in a state dominated by Pashtuns, minority communities commonly looked to pious learned or charismatically revered pirs (saints) for leadership. Extensive Sufi and maraboutic networks were spread through the minority communities, readily available as foundations for leadership, organization, communication and indoctrination. These networks also provided for political mobilization, which led to some of the most effective of the resistance operations during the war.

Many Muslims from other countries volunteered to assist various Mujahideen groups in Afghanistan, and gained significant experience in guerrilla warfare. Some groups of these veterans have been significant factors in more recent conflicts in and around the Muslim world.

The Mujahideen "won" when the Soviet Union pulled troops out of Afghanistan in 1989, followed by the fall of the Mohammad Najibullah regime in 1992. However, the Mujahideen did not establish a united government, and they were in turn ousted from power by the Taliban in 1996.

Mujahideen in Iraq
More recently, the term is used by, and applied to, guerillas fighting the American occupation in Iraq. Resistance fighters referred to as mujahedin are drawn both from the Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam. The term has been especially used to describe the fighters that resisted the siege of Fallujah by Marines in April of 2004. Following the end of the siege, the mujehedin patrolled and enforced shariah law in all but the center of the city where the Fallujah Brigade is based.

10:45 PM  
Blogger R7 said...

US Terrorism?

compiled by
Art Ludwig

One of the most durable features of the U.S. culture is the inability or refusal to recognize U.S. crimes. The media have long been calling for the Japanese and Germans to admit guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. But the idea that this country has committed huge crimes, and that current events such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks may be rooted in responses to those crimes, is close to inadmissible. A refresher course:

American forces currently operate with impunity from bases in 50 countries... "Full spectrum dominance" is Washington's clearly stated aim.

The international arms trade is dominated by the US.

Of 35 countries using torture on an administrative basis in the late 1970s, 26 were clients of the United States.

The US has been bombing one or another Middle Eastern country almost continuously since 1983. US bombers and/or battleships have attacked Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Iran, the Sudan and Afghanistan.

US provides material aid including Apache assault helicopters to support Israeli military occupation of Arab land. This contrasts sharply with, for example, US response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Gulf war against Iraq produced 160,000 to 220,000 deaths, 60,000-100,000 civilians. 19 Americans died. The pentagon has consistently dodged estimating Iraqi casualties and the media has virtually ignored the issue. Due to sanctions an estimated additional 500,000 Iraqi children have died.

In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Mujadeen, which gave birth to the fanatical Taliban, was largely the creation of the CIA. Osam Bin Ladin was among those supported and tutored by the CIA.

The US government tacitly backed Saddam Hussein's unprovoked attack on Iran in 1980, and the Reagan administration supplied him with weapons and CIA intelligence throughout the eight-year war which followed.

United States installed the Shah as dictator of Iran in 1953, trained his secret services in "methods of interrogation".

Almost unknown to its citizenry, the US is currently fighting an undeclared war in Colombia.

CIA directed the invasion of Guatemala in 1954 after new government nationalized "United Fruit" company lands. Ultimately 30,000 civilians were killed by US sponsored death squads trained on US soil at the infamous "School of the Americas" The undeclared war in Central America was financed by shipments of cocaine by the CIA on military aircraft, a program almost certainly blessed by the elder George Bush.

US sponsored violence in Chile that climaxed with the murder of the democratically elected leader Salvador Allende.

More than 250,000 people killed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman ordered the bombing not so much to shorten the Pacific phase of World War II - Japan was already on the brink of surrender - as to send a message to the Soviet Union, America's ally in the war, that Washington planned to call the shots in the postwar world.

The CIA assassinated the democratically elected president of the Congo and installed Mobutu, who opened their diamond and cobalt mines to western business interests.

In Korea and then in Vietnam, US bombing killed as many as four million people, the vast majority of them noncombatants.

In Indonesia, in 1965-66, a million people were killed with the complicity of the US and British governments: the Americans supplying General Suharto with assassination lists, then ticking off names as people were killed.

A Wall Street Journal report in 1997 estimated that perhaps 500,000 children in Vietnam suffer from serious birth defects resulting from the U.S. use of chemical weapons there.

The same is true of millions in southern Africa, where the United States supported Savimbi in Angola and carried out a policy of "constructive engagement."

Material was compiled by Art Ludwig at Oasis Design in Santa Barbara.

10:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home