By Gilbert Achcar, Tom Mills
By Ala'a Shehabi, Ian Sinclair
By Marko Randelovic
You got a great site here. Every article is worth a read…
Keep up the good work..
May Marx bless you
This analysis is essential to understanding the forced breakup of Yugoslavia and the ethnic horrors and regime change in Rwanda. In both cases historical ethnic tensions were raised to the boiling point so as to effect a hidden agenda by the U.S. and NATO. Subsequently the losing sides were both demonized and bought before a kangaroo court. The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda are being used to clean up America’s and Germany’s dirty hands!
This is revisionism of the crudest order. It is very, very telling indeed that in this entire exchange Johnstone nowhere once mentions the internal power garb Milosevic was engaging in within Serbia: installing loyalists in Kosovo, Montenegro, Vojvodina, purging the moderate (actually Yugoslav, as in, non-nationalist) elements within the structure of the government, purging the Yugoslav National Army (YNA) of non-Serb elements, and setting up faux opposition parties (i.e. Seselj and his Radicals) as proof of his “democratic” character while at the same time employing these same people to go across the border, do some weekend ethnic cleansing and looting, and then come back and maintain his hands were clean.
This is all on the record, The Death of Yugoslavia (both book and documentary), chronicle precisely these facts—in the very words of the people doing them. And, one might, at a time when Milosevic and company were still in power. The very people Johnstone purports to defend deny the validity of what she is asserting.
As for Srebrenica, she is, ironically, right in one respect. To call Srebrenica an instance of “genocide” and not refer to the rest of campaign in eastern Bosnia, in particular, by the Serbs of ethnic cleansing and systematic rape as “genocide” is laughable. Moreover, we also know that the government in Belgrade was heavily invested in this projected. The present government has all but admitted it when they handed over papers to the Hague during the Milosevic trial on the condition that these same papers not be used during the Bosnia-Serbia genocide trial. How interesting!
And as for the idea that the government in Sarajevo was “Muslim.” Yes, it was dominated by Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and Izetbegovic was a buffoon but let’s recall a few things. The chief commander of the forces of the nascent Bosnian Republic was a Serb. The effective second in command, before being assassinated, was a Croat. The cabinet was composed of Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats and even Jews (Sven Alkalaj). The constitution of the Republic of Bosnia was mirrored on the Yugoslav constitution—as in multi-ethnic. Has she taken the time to glance at the internal discussion within the Republika Srpska (published by the ICTY) where they openly discuss their vision for the entity and its borders? Obviously not.
Johnstone is right to alert us to the destructive role the West played in Yugoslavia. But like Edward Herman, her arguments are of the crudest, revisionist character and do a disservice to the Left. She is simply taking the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to its bankrupt end. It’s as when Herman liked Milosevic to Lincoln. Morally reprehensible and academically stunted.
Well Tulip, I’ve read ‘the Death of Yugoslavia’ - it’s an appalling piece of drivel, and the film which it uses so heavily for it’s ‘sources’ has been widely ridiculed for it’s blatant mis-translations and abject ignorance of Balkan culture. And since when has a tv documentary counted as ‘historical proof’? Can we discount bias in the choice of interviewees, and leading questions? But even that book has great reservations about the standard Western-media story, including Srebrenica - the book reads a bit like the Hutton report (a notorious whitewash) in that every so often it is interspersed with conclusions which say the opposite of what the text has just shown, as if it had been edited by a NATO officer with a veto. But NOWHERE in that book is there a claim that the Serb opposition was Milosevic’s ‘creation’, and that he sent them ‘over the border to create mayhem at the weekends’. You’re scraping the bucket there, Tulip, but we’re used to that from Croatian and NATO propagandists.
I published an article in Covert ACtion Quarterly with Diana Johnstone in 1999. This magazine had won the most Project Censored awards in the 1990s. Her article on this subject then was supported by many other well-researched pieces by well-meaning historians. Both then and now she seems to have the best political analysis I’ve seen. Nato’s war of aggression in Yugoslavia fits their pattern of such wars to exploit populations around the world. While Johnstone explains the complexities of all the actors well, the pattern of PR campaigns to demonize, with extreme exaggeration, anyone who stands in the way of the American/British elites’ hypercapitalist ideology continues and is simple to see. For example, as many problems as there were with Hussein and the Taliban, the former gave more rights and leadership positions to women than most Middle East countries. Hussein, while reportedly starting out at a CIA-backed assassin, distributed the national wealth more than most Arab leaders. The Taliban were sexist, but they also eradicated the opium fields—a major cash crop for Western powers that falsely inflates our stock market. Of course both countries were connected to major oil interests of the U.S. Iraq had it and Afghanistan was located on an important pipeline site.
I could only support Tulip especially regarding ethnic cleansing in Eastern Bosnia in may -august in 1992 , much greater genocide then Srebrenica when Serbian paramilitary (from Serbia and Bosnia) helped by Yugoslavian Army (JA) started ethnic cleansing of Muslims, which is just repetition of what chetnics started in 1942 .
She contends that genocide was committed not only in Srebrenica, but in the eastern Bosnian towns of Zvornik, Vlasenica, Bratunac, Rogatica, Foca and Visegrad.
“The genocide methods were identical in each of these towns and villages,” Becirevic writes, mentioning that the places were first shelled, weapons confiscated from Bosniak citizens, and then civilians deported, detained in camps, or killed.
“A genocide is characterized by the lack of sanctions, but it often also refers to the international community, which frequently becomes an accessory in genocide by taking a role of a passive observer,” the author asserts.”
Also is shameful defence of Milosevic by some leftist ( Hermann, Johnston, Luis ).
Milosevic should be judged by his doing , not by his talking or writings . He started by destroying Communist party of Serbia , then communist party of Yugoslavia, then Yugoslavia state all in name defending “socialism” and Yugoslavia.
Here some reading in English , for Luis, which I find at one place “Pescanik” written by Srdja Popovic, Lawyer , not leftist but anti-nationalist, which I appreciate more.
Milosevic “He is a man of no convictions, no interest in ideas. He just plays the power game for its own sake. He’s an empty container that others filled with their own agendas and political energy. He uses Tito’s legacy of manipulating various ethnic groups to the point that everybody felt ruled by others. He played very well to that feeling in Serbia. He overblew the Kosovo problem to show the Serbs that they should not be “ruled by others.”
The Break-Up of Yugoslavia
“SFRJ ceased to exist on 28 September 1990, when Serbia constituted itself as ‘independent and sovereign”
Miloševi?’s Motiveless Malignancy
How We Lie To Ourselves
James, I will thank you to refrain from abject racism. I am not Croatian, but the idea that somehow all Croatians would hold one particular opinion, one way or another, is as ridiculous as it is offensive. The same goes for any other nation or group, for that matter. Moreover, one does not need to be “Croatian” or a “NATO-supporter” to object to historical revisionism of the sort of which Johnstone et al are involved in. The fact that this is the strawman you go to demonstrates the profoundly banal worldview which you subscribe to. NATO is evil, therefore anyone that opposes it must be a hero!
As it pertains to “The Death of Yugoslavia” I welcome any concrete objections to any specific claims made in the book or the TV program. Speaking as someone who is fluent in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian I found no significant mistranslation to have occurred. We don’t know precisely the nature of the questions asked, but the comments made by Milosevic et al speak for themselves. His closest aides speak of precisely the the things I mentioned above. Which of these is a lie or a obstruction of facts?
Secondly, the Serbian TV channel B92 produced a fantastic documentary on the Serbian campaign in Vukovar in which the participants themselves, again, attest to the manner in which they were closely supported and used by the central leadership in Belgrade and the leadership of the YNA. Seselj and Milosevic hated each other so much that the former was a defense witness for the latter in The Hague. They even entered into a coalition government at one point.
But, hey, here’s Seselj himself, less than a minute into the video stating just this fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_5P4GAdUQo&feature=related
Quite the rivalry.
As for Saddam and the Taliban, that’s not the issue so I won’t bother with that. Though I will say that it’s quite telling that the height of progressivism to the remnants of the old Stalinist left is to throw their support behind the likes of Saddam and the Taliban.
Tulip, you wrote that Herman “liked (linked) Milosevic to Lincoln.” I haven’t seen this in his writing, can you point out a reference for this statement?
“Milosevic’s aim was defensive—that he wanted to prevent the dismantling of Yugoslavia, but as a second line of defense he sought to help the stranded Serb minorities in the exiting republics stay together. This of course was what Abraham Lincoln was doing after the secession of the Southern states in the run-up to the Civil War-presumably, he was trying to create a ‘Greater America.”
Not only is he willingly misrepresenting Milosevic, he’s misrepresenting Lincoln as well. Double header.
I can only strongly welcome the contributions above by tulip and yugoslav to this typically awful revisionism by Johnstone. Rather than go into detail here (that would require an article of equal length, at least), I’ll point out two obvious holes in her story, as a way of suggesting readers read the rest of her piece with great caution as regards facts. First she makes the incredible statement that under the old Yugoslavia, there was no unemployment. As any student of the former Yugoslavia knows, Yugoslavia by the 1970s not only had higher unemployment than anywhere in Eastern Europe, but also anywhere in western Europe as well. This is somewhat of a side-point, to warn readers of the nature of Johnstone’s “facts”; in itself, I have no interest here in putting down semi-socialist Yugoslavia too much, because certainly I support and defend it for all its progressive aspects, which were destroyed by the rise in the 1980s of its grave-digger, the neo-chetnik Serbian nationalist movement, headed by Milosevic and others, and by the infamous Serbian Academy. The economic disaster of market socialism, by contrast, was not its strong point. However, since Johnstone tries to imply a degree of continuity between socialist Yugoslavia, the multi-ethnic federation, and Milosevic’s Serbian chauvinist regime, its grave-digger, her utterly false suggestion of full employment in the former might be aimed at helping her idea that there was some element of “socialism” in the kleptocratic regime of Milosevic. You would have to know little about the times however to not know that the rise of Milosevic heralded not only a vicious wave of anti-Yugoslav Serbian nationalism, but also a further wave of austerity, deregulation and privatisation, so that unemployment shot up to sensational new heights (and this was long before the war and sanctions). After all, Milosevic’s origins were as the Yugoslav rep to IMF meetings when he lived in the US, and the IMF strongly backed his early program. Indeed, Serbian nationalism is not something that arose out of nowhere; it was precisely the ideology of the rising new ruling classes emerging out of the wreck of socialism (as was Tudjman’s mirror image Croatian nationalism when it arose several years after Milosevic had begun the rampage). The other complete non-fact in Johnstone’s piece is where she writes: “Tito’s policy toward the great ethnic diversity of Yugoslavia had been to give considerable cultural and linguistic rights to each group, a policy which is pursued today by Serbia – although not by Croatia and Slovenia. (For example, Serbia provides bilingual schools using the mother tongue of Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian and Slovak minorities.)” In reality, such cultural and linguistic rights and bilingual education exists in both Croatia and Serbia. The laws are virtually identical; the practice may be much less than perfect, but this applies to both. Her blandly dishonest statement that only Serbia does this and not Croatia again aims at dressing up the Milosevic regime, by suggesting continuity. In reality, such rights barely existed under either Milosevic or Tudjman and have been reinstated in both countries since the end of both regimes. Serbs for example in Eastern Slavonia (where they are now 85% of the population, compared to only 25% in 1991) have their own schools in Serbian. That whole discussion also overlooks the role of Milosevic in smashing to pieces not only the Yugoslav federation, but above all the one section of Yugoslavia which attempted, in vain, to hold together a multi-ethnic constitution and reality, namely Bosnia. As for her dismissal of the Srebrenica genocide, again I can only agree with Tulip’s point above about this. I don’t need to say much about the political morality of Johnstone on this.
I can only echo Mr. Karadjis points above. I will also add that if we are actually interested in a truly left perspective on Yugoslavia, then perhaps it is most appropriate to turn to the former Yugoslavs themselves.
To that end, these two articles by Slavoj Zizek dismiss the large majority of these crudely revisionist mythologies Johnstone and her supporters roll out as the body of “critical scholarship.”
The objective reliability of Ms Johnstone’s analysis is flagged rather early on in the interview by the elliptical reference to bilingual education.
Thanks to all for your contributions, particularly Tulip and Michael Karadjis. We were hoping this interview would provoke some good debate and I’m glad to see it has done so
” However, since Johnstone tries to imply a degree of continuity between socialist Yugoslavia, the multi-ethnic federation, and Milosevic’s Serbian chauvinist regime, its grave-digger, her utterly false suggestion of full employment in the former might be aimed at helping her idea that there was some element of “socialism” in the kleptocratic regime of Milosevic. You would have to know little about the times however to not know that the rise of Milosevic heralded not only a vicious wave of anti-Yugoslav Serbian nationalism, but also a further wave of austerity, deregulation and privatisation, so that unemployment shot up to sensational new heights (and this was long before the war and sanctions). After all, Milosevic’s origins were as the Yugoslav rep to IMF meetings when he lived in the US, and the IMF strongly backed his early program ” Michael Karadjis.
You totally misrepresent Johnstone here, as well as misrepresenting the events and Milosevic - you put the cart before the horse in every case. Johnstone has written extensively on the above, and doesn’t say what you say she says - an no! don’t bother picking a passage out of context to place here! Yes, there were ‘waves of nationalism’ as in all the regions of Yugoslavia - you make it sound like Milosevic was responsible for it, rather than standing against the extremists ( who he defeated in elections). And ‘the IMF strongly backed his early program’? LOL They. DICTATED it! Milosevic did his best to resist them and to maintain some economic independence for Yugoslavia, which was why Serbia was bombed ultimately. You make it sound like Johnstone doesn’t discuss any of this, whereas it’s the entire first chapter of her book - massively sourced and footnoted - and is continuously discussed throughout the rest.
James, your point is akin to the Holocaust revisionists who hold that it was really Hitler’s aides who were involved in the extermination, not good old Adolf. Had he only known! Or perhaps those Medieval peasants who held the King to be their protector against the evil barons. If only he knew how they squeezed us for taxes! It’s complete and utter fabrication.
As I’ve already pointed out, Seselj and Milosevic actually governed, officially, in a coalition for a period. Seselj, as per the video I posted earlier, is quite open about the fact that he and his paramilitaries were supplied and dictated by Milosevic to cross over into Bosnia and Croatia. Seselj even came to Milosevic’s defense at the Hague. More over, we know that the regime in Belgrade was actively funding the Serbs in both Bosnia and Croatia (within the so called “Serb Republics”). It has been clearly established. The YNA transfered 80,000 troops to the Bosnian Serb forces alone.
Milosevic backed wars in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. He was actively engaged in the campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, in particular. He harnessed Serbian nationalism to propel himself into power and to allow himself and his cronies to get rather rich in the process.
I would accuse you of historical revisionism but this is more like simple historical ignorance. The only proof you have brought to bear is one book—the same book many of us have already pointed out as being itself rather lacking.
Tulip states: “And as for the idea that the government in Sarajevo was “Muslim.” Yes, it was dominated by Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and Izetbegovic was a buffoon but let’s recall a few things. The chief commander of the forces of the nascent Bosnian Republic was a Serb. The effective second in command, before being assassinated, was a Croat. The cabinet was composed of Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats and even Jews (Sven Alkalaj). “
This is a lie. Every position of real power in the Bosnian Govt was held not only by Bosnian Muslims, but by Bosnian Muslim men. This includes the president (actually, the one-year-rotating chairman of the presidency council, but never relinquished), the (self-described) vice president, the cmdr of the armed forces, the head of the interior police, the head of major state-controlled industries (especially the arms industry), etc. There was, for a while, a Bosnian Serb who was supposedly second in command of their army, but he was there only for window dressing. I heard a report at the time in which he complained he was shut out of all important decision-making meetings.
These sorts of claims were like those made by Western journalists at the time saying that Izetbegovic’s party, the SDA (the party of democratic action) was not a Muslim nationalist party, because its name didn’t include the name “Muslim”.
The Bosnian civil war was all about propaganda. Even calling it a civil war was a major no-no, even though the vast majority of people fighting there were from there (the main exception being the Croatian army). The propaganda’s aims were to justify Western military intervention on the side of the nationalist Bosnian Muslims (as opposed to the non-nationalist Bosnian Muslims, led by Fikret Abdic) and the Croats. Propaganda was necessary to obscure the fact that it was the nationalist Bosnian Muslim side which was against every peace effort and behind nearly every major break in a cease-fire. (Their apologists, if confronted with such facts, would plead that this was necessary because the status quo did not favor them.)
Tulip also states: “The constitution of the Republic of Bosnia was mirrored on the Yugoslav constitution—as in multi-ethnic.” If Izetbegovic and his party wanted to live in a multi-ethnic state, they could have stayed in Yugoslavia. Instead, they wanted to dominate their own centralized state, even at the cost of many lives. (Izetbegovic: “I would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina… but for that peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina I would not sacrifice sovereignty.”) That’s why he also reneged on his own signature to the Lisbon plan, a pre-war European Community (pre-Union) effort to get the major parties to agree to a political framework for an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina. (It would have been a Swiss-style cantonization.)
And people are talking about Srebrenica and ethnic cleansing. How many Bosnian Serbs were left inside Bosnian-govt-held Srebrenica? Where did they go? Let’s talk about Naser Oric, the local Bosnian Govt military commander, and a war criminal if there ever was one. He was so proud of his war crimes, he showed videos of beheaded Bosnian Serb civilians (including women and old people) and villages destroyed by his men to Western journalists. Throughout the Bosnian War, Srebrenica, despite being a UN Safe Area, was never demilitarized and was used to launch brutal ethnic cleansing campaigns against surrounding Bosnian Serb villages.
And for the benefit of non-Yugoslav observers to this exchange, “Chetnik” is a term used now by anti-Serb racists. The Chetniks were pro-royalist guerrilas during WW II, as opposed to the Partisans, who were pro-Communist. To call Milosevic (a Socialist party apparatchik) the leader of a neo-Chetnik movement is a joke. It’s akin to calling the Croats “Ustashe” (the fascist Croatian forces of WW II) or calling the Bosnian Muslims “Turks”.
Bravo to Diana Johnstone for her courage in opposing the self-inconsistent orthodoxy about the wars in the former Yugoslavia. She has to deal with hatred from so many sides.
“Every position of real power in the Bosnian Govt was held not only by Bosnian Muslims, but by Bosnian Muslim men.”
I’d certainly like to see more women in government, but your faux-feminism fools no one. I have already provided a thorough list of non-Bosniak members of the government, many of whom have remained active members of the political scene in Bosnia. Jovan Divjak, Stjepan Siber, and Blaz Kraljevic alone were three very prominent, highly influential commanders in the Army of the Republic.
I eagerly await examples of non-Serbs in the leadership of the RS or what remained of Yugoslavia. As I recall, the only time I can remember Serbian-Croat collaboration during the war was when Milosevic and Tudjman openly met to discussion the partition of Bosnia between themselves. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara?or?evo_agreement)
“These sorts of claims were like those made by Western journalists at the time saying that Izetbegovic’s party, the SDA (the party of democratic action) was not a Muslim nationalist party, because its name didn’t include the name “Muslim”.”
And where, dear friend, have I defend Izetbegovic? Or the SDA? Yes, he was a nationalist. Yes, the SDA were a Bosniak nationalist party. Unlike in the RS, however, the Bosnian government was not merely composed of Bosniak nationalists. They were kept in check by opponents. It’s called the democratic discursive process. The nascent Bosnian democracy was far, far perfect and left much to be desired. But it’s clear there were was far more political wrangling going on in Sarajevo than there was in Banja Luka or Pale. There was no “consensus” amongst Bosniaks, the pre-elections showed that.
Yes, secession was greatly favoured but after the aforementioned situation in Kosovo, Montenegro, Vojvodina, Slovenia and Croatia—who can blame them? After the purging of the YNA of non-Serb elements, after the surrounding of Sarajevo with artillery and the de-arming of the Territorial Defense Forces of Bosnia, who would seriously claim that the Serbian nationalist establishment had not come to their desired end?
Hence, if the objection is that the Serbs were unhappy with the proposed structure of the Bosnian state, then they should have taken this very reasonable objections through a process of peaceful, democratic contestation. Instead, the logic Branko and Johnstone would have us follow is that because the Serbs opposed the state structure of independent Bosnia they were perfectly justified in annexing the whole of the territory and purging and exterminating the Bosniak population, in particular. This policy was established and openly discussed by the RS leadership, it is widely available in the documentation provided to ICTY and available online.
So, because one element of the Bosnian leadership had nationalist ambitions…we are supposed to believe that genocide was an appropriate response? Sound really reasonable.
Fikret Abdic had such a love for his country and his people he decided it was better to align himself with a genocidal regime, bent on their extermination and to turn his men loose on this same persecuted population that to cooperate with an imperfect, but still non-genocidal (!), government in Sarajevo. He is a indicted war criminal and much like previous remarks about Sadddam Hussein and the Taliban, it is telling that he is the hero you would extol.
“Propaganda was necessary to obscure the fact that it was the nationalist Bosnian Muslim side which was against every peace effort and behind nearly every major break in a cease-fire.”
Every peace effort premised on the legitimization of a campaign of extermination and genocide? Yes, they were, and rightfully so. Would any one like to object to such a stance? I’d welcome the argument.
As for the idea that it was the Bosnian side breaking cease-fires: yes, just like they were bombing themselves in the streets of Sarajevo? I’d laugh, but as this is another popular conspiracy theory I’d best point out boldly that this is SARCASM.
“If Izetbegovic and his party wanted to live in a multi-ethnic state, they could have stayed in Yugoslavia.”
I’ve already dealt with this ludicrous claim. I merely wish to reiterate that Izetbegovic was one member of a cabinet that by no means had a unitary vision for Bosnia. And secondly, that we must remember of all the preceding events to the Bosnian independence vote: Kosovo, Montenegro, Vojvodina, Slovenia and Croatia. The purging of the YNA of non-Serb elements, the surrounding of Sarajevo with artillery and the de-arming of the Territorial Defense Forces of Bosnia…there seemed to be a pretty strong case for a Serbian nationalist project afoot, ladies and gentlemen.
And let us also remember, that when 50,000 Sarajevans gathered for a march for peace, it was the Serbian paramilitary the opened fire on them—killing two. One of them a Croat. Ah, yes, the multi-ethnic “Yugoslavs” opening fire on the fundamentalist Bosniaks who also seemed somehow to be surrounded by Serbs and Croats. Gosh, this narrative seems problematic.
Read for yourselves: “On April 5, Serbian policemen attacked police stations and then an Interior Ministry training school. The attack killed two officers and one civilian. The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared a state of emergency the following day. Later that day Serb paramilitaries in Sarajevo repeated their action of the previous month. A crowd of peace marchers, between 50,000 and 100,000 Bosnians of all ethnic groups, rallied in protest. As the largest section moved towards the parliament building, Serb gunmen firing from the Serbian Democratic Party headquarters killed two young women in the crowd, Suada Dilberovi? and Olga Su?i?. They are regarded as the first casualties of the siege. Vrbanja Bridge, where they were killed, has since been renamed in their honor.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo#Start_of_the_war)
“And people are talking about Srebrenica and ethnic cleansing. How many Bosnian Serbs were left inside Bosnian-govt-held Srebrenica? Where did they go? Let’s talk about Naser Oric, the local Bosnian Govt military commander, and a war criminal if there ever was one.”
Oric, it should be pointed out, was Milosevic’s ex-bodyguard and war profiteer. All the same, he was found innocent of most of the serious charges against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naser_Ori?
As for the more serious question or claim that the Bosnian Army had been doing around Srebrenica can in anyway be compared to the response is simply a myth, and a cruel one at that. The internationally funded and recognized Research and Documentation Center has flatly dismissed such claims: “The RDC’s figures show that 81.06% of all war deaths from the Podrinje region – where Srebrenica and the surrounding Serb villages are located -during the whole of the war were Muslims (a total of 16,940 civilians and 7,177 soldiers) while 18.73% were Serbs (870 civilians and 4,703) soldiers. The RDC’s figures show that 10,333 people from the Podrinje region were killed during 1995; that over 93% of these were Muslims; and that 9,328 out of the 10,333 were killed during the single month of July. Conversely, the RDC has specifically investigated the Serb death-toll in the Bratunac municipality, where the bulk of Bosnian Army killings in the Srebrenica region are alleged to have taken place, and concluded that 119 Serb civilians and 448 Serb soldiers were killed there during the whole of the war.”
“To call Milosevic (a Socialist party apparatchik) the leader of a neo-Chetnik movement is a joke.”
And here is, as I in my previous posts, the essential logic of this revisionism: Milosevic was part of the SOCIALIST PARTY! OF COURSE! He can’t possibly be guilty of any of these crimes, no matter how much evidence is extolled to the contrary. It’s all just Western and “Muslim” propaganda!
Indeed, comrades. Ol’ Slobodan can thus join the pantheon of other great “socialist” leaders: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and friends.
That Karajorjevo story is always a sure sign of a charlatan. That’s always thrown up as if it was the last word on the matter. And what does it amount to? Tudjman and Milosevice met at Karadjorjevo; there are no witness accounts of what they discussed; Tudjman said they discussed ‘division’ of some territories; Milosevic says they didn’t. Guilty! Oh, I forgot - the Hague show-trial didn’t find Milosevic guilty of anything either, since you set so much store by that. And what if they DID discuss some sort of division? Is compromise not allowed?
James, by all means, please continue to post. You’re absurd conspiracy theories are practically all the evidence one needs to make the point I have been advancing about Johnstone’s despicable revisionism.
Yeah, there were absolutely no witnesses…except half the cabinet staff of the Serbian and Croatian governments who continued to participate and be privy to the discussions for quite some. Amongst these were several Western observers. But, yeah, you’re right: no observers.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara?or?evo_agreement (Google is your friend!)
And if they did agree to partition? Well, to my mind it does recall the partition of Poland between the USSR and Germany—via extermination, genocide and invasion with no regard to what the Poles may have wanted. But hey, clearly you’re of the opinion that foreign powers should have every right to decide the fate of third parties. I can only assume that you were fully in favor of the invasion of Iraq and/or the bombing of Yugoslavia/Serbia?
my English is bad and till I wrote this, Tulip already answer some question. I disagree with him regarding the role of Ficret Abdic ,which made wrong decisions trying to save Casin Kraina from the war, which was not possible at that time , but it was attacked by Alija forces and committed war crimes but Alija army did the same. Bosnian Army was only Bosnian for few months at beginning of the war but later become Muslim Army thanks to Alija wrong decision that Muslim should organised themself just to defend Muslims instead of defending Bosnia . He gave criminals the main role in defending Sarajevo instead of to antinational JNA army generals (which offered their services , most of them Serbs, then already in pension, but ready defend Bosnia from Serbian aggression) but surely more capable in organising army and resistance then Caco and Celo, Juka , Zuka .
The Bosnian war was all about killing , destruction , ethnic cleansing. 100000 deaths, many more injured, million refugees and for you all that is propaganda. Ethnic cleansing (genocide) of Muslims of Eastern Bosnia from April to august 1992 helped by Yugoslav (Serbian ) Army was also propaganda?
Yes, SDA wanted united Bosnia where Muslims were relative majority (43% of Bosniaks, 31% of Serbs, and 17% of Croats) the same way as Milosovic wanted united Yugoslavia where Serbs had relative majority. Muslims wanted to play mayor role in Bosnia. That was first multiparty election and there was no experience with real meanings of democracy, importance of respect of minorities. National parties won elections and should figure out and learn how to govern Bosnia.
“Instead, they wanted to dominate their own centralized state, even at the cost of many lives. (Izetbegovic: “I would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina… but for that peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina I would not sacrifice sovereignty.”)
Yes that is truth they wanted dominate, as any other nationalistic party, but why ” even at the cost of many lives. ” ? You can accused them of such desire to dominate but they did not threat anybody by war. Only Serbs nationalists were threatening others by war because they relayed on powerful Yugoslav Army ( which was a traitor of Yugoslavia , already Serbian army , abandoning its oath to protect brotherhood and unity and prevent a fratricidal war.) The cost of many lives would be only because Serbs nationalist would start the war.
I was also supporting that Bosnia stay in some alliance with Serbia but only to avoid the war.
Serbia with Milosevic in power was sick society and that why everybody wanted out from Yugoslavia , because no sincere agreement with him was possible. Nobody trusted him . He already eliminated his opposition, replaced leadership of Vojvodina , Montenegro, change constitution of Serbia and Kosovo when tanks were around parliament of Kosovo and many Albanian leaders and parliamentarians in prison.
In that time of negotiation in Bosnia there was war between Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia should stay out of it. Making alliance with Serbia it will push Croats in Bosnia to secession which will again started war in Bosnia.
“That’s why he also reneged on his own signature to the Lisbon plan, a pre-war European Community (pre-Union) effort to get the major parties to agree to a political framework for an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina. (It would have been a Swiss-style cantonization.)”
Bosnia was not Swiss then ( probably is now, after ethnic cleansings were finished by all sides, and they should now try that Swiss-style cantonization) . In every new building in all small and big towns there was mixture of Serbs, Muslims , Croats, Yugoslavs, which was not possible divide without war. Serbs nationalists wanted that every town has separate governments , that every town should be divided, ethnic municipalities should be created. They mind was still set in 19 century when people lived in separated villages and they forget that people already lived and worked together in peace for almost 50 years. They talked as WWII just finished. All towns had new settlements with small and big skyscrapers where people leaved together mixed in every building but they wanted total separation because fear of others. Division of Bosnia in 1991 by ethnicity was not possible and was sick idea.
Alija was wrong person as leader of Bosniaks in those difficult times, more interested in return Bosniaks to Islam then destiny of Bosnia. The truth leader of Bosniaks should reject any division of Bosnia and reject any talks in that direction. At the end Alija become traitor of Bosnia and excepted division of Bosnia in Dayton. Multiethnic Bosnia does not exist anymore, only divided Bosnia where people who speaks the same language cannot agree about anything.
There was question how to organise Bosnia and political life there. With nationalists in power, and Croatia and Serbia in the war , JA still in Bosnia, that was very difficult. Any solution could be only temporary. If nationalist parties could not find agreement it could be new elections and maybe people after few elections will find out that voting for nationalists does not lead anywhere.
Yugoslavia did not exist after Slovenia and Croatia proclaimed independence. Slovenia was proposing asymmetric federation ( to enable different political system to exist, if Serbia want keep its fake socialism. Slovenia wanted European political and economic model (“Evropa zdaj!” (Europe now) ) and Croatia proposed Confederation before decide for independence.
As Yugoslav I wanted to stay in united Yugoslavia but obviously in 1991 confederation was only possible political solution and Europe promising European membership ( that was proposed to in 1990 or early 1991 , but rejected by Milosevic and Tudjman) meant there would be no boarder between Serbs or Croats and Muslims, there will be law which would protect minorities (nobody would be protected by exploitation by European bourgeoisies).
Defending Serbs means defending sick and criminal policies of Miloshevic and Karadjic . Yugoslavia and Bosnia could avoid wars if there were no Serbian nationalists which thought that having power army on their side they could achieved they goals by war instead of painful negotiation . Only Serbs could save and destroy Yugoslavia and Bosnia but they choose path of war. Others were merely defending themself.