The Washington Times
August 17, 1997
WILL AMERICAN FORCES EVER LEAVE BOSNIA?
By Bob Djurdjevic
The sympathetic New York media have nick-named him "Kissinger of the Balkans" - a sure omen of an ignominious end to an illustrious diplomatic career. Just as the Henry Kissinger diplomacy ultimately produced the most humiliating defeat in America's 221-year history - loss of Vietnam war - Richard Holbrooke's current Bosnia "peace mission" is doomed to failure no matter how many wrists Bill Clinton's "Balkan Bully" twists in this troubled region.
The reason is quite simple. There are two MIA's in U.S. Bosnia policy. One is balance. The other is fairness. Without the two, no deal can work in the long run. A Wall Street deal-maker (which is what Holbrooke is when not pinch-hitting for the State Dept.) ought to know that, even if the goons and the Foggy Bottom diplomats don't seem to grasp such a simple concept.
Without balance and fairness to all sides in the conflict, Bosnia will continue to exist merely as an artificial, "made in America" police state, with foreign troops acting as enforcers. A new ethnic war will erupt when and if the foreigners leave.
Which is why Holbrooke's current visit may be a Trojan Horse for local combatants and the American people alike. Peace may not be the ultimate objective of the Clinton globalists. Continued engagement of foreign troops on Balkan soil would give NATO yet another raison d'Ítre, while projecting its neo-colonial power closer to Russia's borders.
All this was made possible because the Bosnian Serbs had been bludgeoned into signing at Dayton what were effectively "articles of surrender." The U.S. military aid to Croatia and to Bosnian Muslims, not to mention the deadly payloads which the NATO bombers dropped on the Serbs in August-September 1995, forced the Serbs to give up their national sovereignty and much of the land which their forefathers had held for centuries.
Before the war, the Bosnian Serbs owned some 64% of the land. Dayton left them with a mere 49%. And even that territory is virtually split into two separate entities.
Dayton required the Serbs to reduce their military power, while the U.S. continued to arm and train the Muslims and the Croats.
International financial institutions gave billions of dollars to the Bosnian Muslims and Croats for reconstruction, while allotting less than 2% to the Serbs.
The Bosnian Croats expelled over 450 Muslims from Jajce this week (Aug. 5) in a clear violation of the Dayton agreement. Croatia openly refused to co-operate with the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Carlos Westerdorp, the top civilian representative of the international community, recommended that sanctions be applied against the Bosnian (Muslim-dominated) government for its failure to live up to the Dayton agreement.
And what did the U.S. do? The State Department threatens new sanctions against the Serbs, according to an Aug. 5 Associated Press story.
In short, balance and fairness was evidently not what Holbrooke's mission is about. He earned the epithet the "Balkan Bully" by his unceasing oppression of the Serbs. Revealing his deep-seated hatred of the Orthodox Christians, this former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs, called the Serbs "murderous [expletive deleted]" in a discussion with ABC's Ted Koppel, according to a flattering Nov. 6, 1995 "NEW YORKER" article.
Holbrooke's racist remark seemed to shock even this veteran newscaster. "That's very reassuring. I'll feel much better sending my son or daughter over there knowing that the Serbs are just murderous [expletive deleted]," Koppel replied tongue-in-cheek.
"Murderous [expletive deleted]" is hardly the language graduates of this country's finest diplomatic schools are taught to use. Nor are the anchors of popular TV news programs expected to repeat them, so as to reinforce the negative impact.
Such gutter language belongs in the gutter, of course. Which is why it became quite typical when the Nazi or the Soviet leaders chose to demonize certain groups of people. Still, this is neither the Nazi Germany, nor the Soviet Union (at least not yet). This is America - "the home of the free."
Yet when one hears Jewish-Americans (of all people!) use such hateful expressions against an entire nation (the Serbs), while at the same time piously declaring "Never Again" at the Holocaust Museum, one has to wonder why what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
Can you imagine, for example, an American Middle-East peace negotiator calling the Jews "murderous [expletive deleted]" and still keeping his job? I can't. Even less likely is that such a person would then be recalled from private life for another round of U.S. government-sponsored negotiations.
Nor is Holbrooke the only Jewish-American in our foreign service whom Clinton seems to be patting on the back despite his hate-mongering tongue (or maybe because of it?).
Madeleine Albright, for example, who supposedly "discovered" her Jewishness only after having been confirmed as Secretary of State last January, was once asked by a demonstrator outside the United Nations in New York City why she was so awful to the Serbs.
"Because they are awful," the Secretary of State replied, then the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., according to a Jan. 22 Associated Press report.
Once again - as in Holbrooke's case - a broad swipe against an entire people, not just a jab at some acccused (not convicted!) individuals. What if Mrs. Albright had said - "all Jews are awful?" Or - "all Blacks are awful?" Or - "all Hispanics are awful?"
Chances are, she'd probably be still back-paddling her way all the way across the Atlantic to her native Czech Republic, rather than serving as the Secretary of State of the "world's greatest democracy."
And then there is Anthony Lake, a former National Security Advisor in the first Clinton administration. Mr. Lake and his deputy, Samuel Berger have perhaps the greatest claim to infamy of all people on Bill Clinton's 1993-1997 foreign policy team. Their meticulous execution of the toughest sanctions ever imposed against a people (the Orthodox Christian Serbs) proved that racial and religious persecution, not national interests, seem to guide the Clinton administration's foreign policy.
As a fairly frequent visitor to the Balkans during the 1991-1995 war, I saw the devastating effect of those sanctions.
The sanctions amounted to genocide - pure and simple. And it was perpetrated by the United States government - first and foremost. Western diplomats with whom I met in Belgrade during the sanctions were sympathetic and tried to help. But their efforts were thwarted by the Clinton administration.
That prominent Jewish-Americans (again, of all people!) were the chief proponents of this "Holocaust II" was especially baffling to the Serbs with whom I spoke at the time. Many old-timers recalled how the Serbs tried to hide the Jews from the Nazi pogroms during WW II. And that over 500 U.S. airmen, downed over Serbia in WW II, were saved by the Serbs, our allies in two world wars, sometimes at a price of their own lives, due to the Nazi reprisals. The Serb General, Draza Mihajlovic, was posthumously awarded a Legion of Merit by President Harry Truman, in part "for the undaunted efforts of his troops" in rescuing the American flyers.
Just how much our country has changed for the worse in the last half a century can be seen by how President Clinton rewarded Mr. Lake for his leadership in the 1992-1995 genocide against the Serbs. He nominated Mr. Lake to be the head of the CIA.
But God's divine intervention and Mr. Lake's dirty baggage (ironically from his lesser transgressions) eventually caught up with him. Under pressure from public opinion, Mr. Lake quit his quest for the CIA job in late March.
That still leaves us with power-hungry racists, like Mr. Holbrooke and Mrs. Albright, in key foreign policy positions in the Clinton administration. As long as they seek to oppress the Orthodox Christians, as they are doing both in the Balkans and in Russia, there will be no world peace.
Such instability, rather than durable peace, is precisely what the Clinton globalists want. Already, the President has hinted at a possible second extension of NATO's mandate in Bosnia (currently due to end in mid-1998, after the first I-FOR mandate expired at the end of 1996). A peace agreement based on balance and fairness would end the need for foreign neo-colonial troops on the Balkan soil.
Judging by how long the U.N. troops have remained in Cyprus, (since 1965), it looks like we may be in the Balkans for the long haul. What Mr. Clinton's Balkan Trojan Horse achieves on his latest trip to this troubled region is largely irrelevant in light of this long-term perspective.
Truth in Media
Back to Index of Columns...