- 23 Aug 2009 01:11
#13138119
After reading about the conflict in various places I've developed a peculiar interpretation of the NATO policy with regards to the events that happened in Croatia and Bosnia in 1991-1995, but I still have a bunch of questions that bother me.
Here's my interpretation of the events:
Nearing the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet bloc leads to a new division of spoils among the Western powers. The recently reunified Germany, feeling powerful and ambitions again, sees Belgrade-dominated Yugoslavia as a fundamentally anti-German construct and pushes for independence of German-friendly Croatia and Slovenia by means of diplomatic pressure, arms smuggling to separatist governments, etc. Despite the protests from Britain and France, Germany eventually succeeds at pushing through the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia as independent states, thus in effect helping to ignite the Third Balkan War.
After the relatively short wars in Slovenia and Croatia, the British and French rush to deploy their troops in the recently created Serb Krajina under a UN mandate, thus securing the Yugoslav gains there against a possible Croatian counter-attack. Immediately afterwards, by inertia the crisis spreads to Bosnia, and from the very beginning the United States takes a hard-line stance in support of the Bosnian government against the Serbs and Croats alike. Bosnia is not liked by anyone in Europe with exception of Albania and Turkey. It is also assisted by volunteers from Iran and Arab countries, as well Saudi Arabian financiers including Bin Laden and the like.
Britain and France, supported by Russia on the outside, impose the Serb-friendly embargo on the former Yugoslavia. They also resolutely resist the US pressures for a tougher line against Serbia, their media at the time seemingly trying to apologize for the Serbs and bash the Croats and Bosniaks. They also present a plan for the partition of Bosnia which gets rejected after the Bosnian leadership's consultation with the US representatives. Britain and France deploy their troops on the ground in Bosnia as peacekeepers, as well as give their approval to Operation Sky Monitor and later on (in 1993) Deny Flight, but the details of their conduct in both cases appear to be aimed at maximally obstructing any effective NATO participation and delaying any attempt to bring the conflict to a successful resolution, instead almost encouraging the Serbs to act more aggressively. Curiously enough, Germany and its allies (chiefly Austria and Hungary), while continuing to arm and support the Croats, also join the the British and French in resisting US pressures. When newly elected Clinton comes to Europe to propose his "lift and strike" strategy, he is rebuffed in ALL European capitals. Nonetheless he does his best to circumvent the embargo and supply the Bosniak forces, including by means of cooperating with Iran, of all countries.
In the meantime, most likely not without having consulted this strategy with their chief supporters on the outside, Milosevic and Tudman sign the non-aggression pact that calls for a division of Bosnia between the two sides, a pact that is essentially a Yugoslav version of the Hitler-Stalin pact, with Milosevic playing the role of Hitler and Tudman playing the role of Stalin, although much of their ideological rhetoric and geopolitical allegiance is switched around. From 1992 to 1994, the Serbs gradually increase their grip over Bosnia, expelling the Croat and Bosniak population from the areas they control, and becoming a more homogeneous and interconnected entity. In accordance, the Europeans gradually allow NATO to increase its presence as well.
The skirmishes between the UN and Serb troops in Bosnia also gradually escalate, with the UN troops acting annoying yet completely impotent towards the Serbs. The tide begins to turn comes shortly after the Bosnian Serb parliament rejects the British-sponsored Vance-Owen plan. The Contact Group and Yugoslavia then begin to publicly put pressure on the Serbs to accept the agreement, however for a while they continue acting impotent, giving the Serbs more time to achieve their objectives, particularly in East Bosnia, where a number of Bosniak enclaves are still holding out, yet at the same time provoking the Serbs to engage the UN forces in the process. Later in 1993 the British unveil yet another peace plan which promises to give the Serbs even more than what the previous plan had accounted for, but this time the Bosniaks reject it. In early 1994 Germany gives a green light to the Washington agreement, in effect a German-American alliance, after which the Croat forces begin to be trained and supported by the US as well as Germany. In May 1995 Chirac replaces Mitterrand in France and around this time France becomes the chief European supporter of bombing the unruly Bosnian Serbs. Yet Britain and Germany continue delaying resolution. In July 1995, Serbs eliminate Srebrenica, one of the last Bosniak enclaves in the area. The public outrage over the event finally pushes NATO to action. And curiously enough, Germany is the only one to express caution and declines to participate in the airstrikes. In early August, the Croats and Bosniaks begin a general offensive across the region with the NATO blessing and Yugoslav indifference, leading to a massive ethnic cleansing of the Serbs which the west prefers not to notice. Later in August, NATO begins Operation Deliberate Force - giving direct air support to Serb's enemies to force the Serbs into negotiations.
At Dayton the sides finally establish a compromise agreement, which gives the Serbs more than they would have received in the Vance-Owen plan (but slightly less than in the plan rejected by the Bosniaks), yet at the price of public humiliation, NATO bombing, and military occupation. It's difficult to tell who actually won in the conflict, it does appear that it was a compromise solution rather than a victory of Washington as the US foreign policy commentators like to present it. The events in Bosnia also led directly to the conflict in Kosovo, but that's a slightly different story.
So accurate or not, this is the impression I get from reading about the conflict. But there are some things there that I just don't understand.
1. Why did United States chose to strongly back the Muslims of Bosnia, of all ethnic groups - the one least liked in Europe, at the time when the Muslim-American relations were already getting sour.
2. Why did all of Europe oppose Bosnia's existence as a unitary state so strongly?
3. Is it the case that the British and French simply used the Serbs to carry out ethnic cleansing on their behalf and then bomb them shortly afterward to appear morally righteous and great? The kind of conduct that they pursued in Bosnia really suggests that this was their policy.
4. Why did Germany refuse to directly participate in the NATO bombing and even cautioned against it, even though it was seemingly in the interest of its own client state (Croatia) that this bombing took place?
Notice also that in the gradual transition of UNPROFOR to IFOR to SFOR and finally to EUFOR, the participants of the contingent changed so that nowadays the former backers of the Bosnian Serbs have practically no presence in Bosnia. The British, French, and Russians - all withdrew, the only ones who still seem to have a significant security investment in Bosnia are Germans and their allies, Turks, and some neutrals. Why is this? I wonder whether this means that they are not interested in Bosnian state security any more and they will once again willing to allow the security situation to deteriorate, or perhaps I'm thinking too sinister?
Here's my interpretation of the events:
Nearing the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet bloc leads to a new division of spoils among the Western powers. The recently reunified Germany, feeling powerful and ambitions again, sees Belgrade-dominated Yugoslavia as a fundamentally anti-German construct and pushes for independence of German-friendly Croatia and Slovenia by means of diplomatic pressure, arms smuggling to separatist governments, etc. Despite the protests from Britain and France, Germany eventually succeeds at pushing through the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia as independent states, thus in effect helping to ignite the Third Balkan War.
After the relatively short wars in Slovenia and Croatia, the British and French rush to deploy their troops in the recently created Serb Krajina under a UN mandate, thus securing the Yugoslav gains there against a possible Croatian counter-attack. Immediately afterwards, by inertia the crisis spreads to Bosnia, and from the very beginning the United States takes a hard-line stance in support of the Bosnian government against the Serbs and Croats alike. Bosnia is not liked by anyone in Europe with exception of Albania and Turkey. It is also assisted by volunteers from Iran and Arab countries, as well Saudi Arabian financiers including Bin Laden and the like.
Britain and France, supported by Russia on the outside, impose the Serb-friendly embargo on the former Yugoslavia. They also resolutely resist the US pressures for a tougher line against Serbia, their media at the time seemingly trying to apologize for the Serbs and bash the Croats and Bosniaks. They also present a plan for the partition of Bosnia which gets rejected after the Bosnian leadership's consultation with the US representatives. Britain and France deploy their troops on the ground in Bosnia as peacekeepers, as well as give their approval to Operation Sky Monitor and later on (in 1993) Deny Flight, but the details of their conduct in both cases appear to be aimed at maximally obstructing any effective NATO participation and delaying any attempt to bring the conflict to a successful resolution, instead almost encouraging the Serbs to act more aggressively. Curiously enough, Germany and its allies (chiefly Austria and Hungary), while continuing to arm and support the Croats, also join the the British and French in resisting US pressures. When newly elected Clinton comes to Europe to propose his "lift and strike" strategy, he is rebuffed in ALL European capitals. Nonetheless he does his best to circumvent the embargo and supply the Bosniak forces, including by means of cooperating with Iran, of all countries.
In the meantime, most likely not without having consulted this strategy with their chief supporters on the outside, Milosevic and Tudman sign the non-aggression pact that calls for a division of Bosnia between the two sides, a pact that is essentially a Yugoslav version of the Hitler-Stalin pact, with Milosevic playing the role of Hitler and Tudman playing the role of Stalin, although much of their ideological rhetoric and geopolitical allegiance is switched around. From 1992 to 1994, the Serbs gradually increase their grip over Bosnia, expelling the Croat and Bosniak population from the areas they control, and becoming a more homogeneous and interconnected entity. In accordance, the Europeans gradually allow NATO to increase its presence as well.
The skirmishes between the UN and Serb troops in Bosnia also gradually escalate, with the UN troops acting annoying yet completely impotent towards the Serbs. The tide begins to turn comes shortly after the Bosnian Serb parliament rejects the British-sponsored Vance-Owen plan. The Contact Group and Yugoslavia then begin to publicly put pressure on the Serbs to accept the agreement, however for a while they continue acting impotent, giving the Serbs more time to achieve their objectives, particularly in East Bosnia, where a number of Bosniak enclaves are still holding out, yet at the same time provoking the Serbs to engage the UN forces in the process. Later in 1993 the British unveil yet another peace plan which promises to give the Serbs even more than what the previous plan had accounted for, but this time the Bosniaks reject it. In early 1994 Germany gives a green light to the Washington agreement, in effect a German-American alliance, after which the Croat forces begin to be trained and supported by the US as well as Germany. In May 1995 Chirac replaces Mitterrand in France and around this time France becomes the chief European supporter of bombing the unruly Bosnian Serbs. Yet Britain and Germany continue delaying resolution. In July 1995, Serbs eliminate Srebrenica, one of the last Bosniak enclaves in the area. The public outrage over the event finally pushes NATO to action. And curiously enough, Germany is the only one to express caution and declines to participate in the airstrikes. In early August, the Croats and Bosniaks begin a general offensive across the region with the NATO blessing and Yugoslav indifference, leading to a massive ethnic cleansing of the Serbs which the west prefers not to notice. Later in August, NATO begins Operation Deliberate Force - giving direct air support to Serb's enemies to force the Serbs into negotiations.
At Dayton the sides finally establish a compromise agreement, which gives the Serbs more than they would have received in the Vance-Owen plan (but slightly less than in the plan rejected by the Bosniaks), yet at the price of public humiliation, NATO bombing, and military occupation. It's difficult to tell who actually won in the conflict, it does appear that it was a compromise solution rather than a victory of Washington as the US foreign policy commentators like to present it. The events in Bosnia also led directly to the conflict in Kosovo, but that's a slightly different story.
So accurate or not, this is the impression I get from reading about the conflict. But there are some things there that I just don't understand.
1. Why did United States chose to strongly back the Muslims of Bosnia, of all ethnic groups - the one least liked in Europe, at the time when the Muslim-American relations were already getting sour.
2. Why did all of Europe oppose Bosnia's existence as a unitary state so strongly?
3. Is it the case that the British and French simply used the Serbs to carry out ethnic cleansing on their behalf and then bomb them shortly afterward to appear morally righteous and great? The kind of conduct that they pursued in Bosnia really suggests that this was their policy.
4. Why did Germany refuse to directly participate in the NATO bombing and even cautioned against it, even though it was seemingly in the interest of its own client state (Croatia) that this bombing took place?
Notice also that in the gradual transition of UNPROFOR to IFOR to SFOR and finally to EUFOR, the participants of the contingent changed so that nowadays the former backers of the Bosnian Serbs have practically no presence in Bosnia. The British, French, and Russians - all withdrew, the only ones who still seem to have a significant security investment in Bosnia are Germans and their allies, Turks, and some neutrals. Why is this? I wonder whether this means that they are not interested in Bosnian state security any more and they will once again willing to allow the security situation to deteriorate, or perhaps I'm thinking too sinister?
...however, what would you (or Germans) say if I bomb a military post in Germany?
...if I remember well, only our Chinese brothers in the UN SC were against those obvious crimes against the Serbs.. ) ..exactly, I was referring to the type of the aircraft used in the action...and it had a mark of Tornado....so, what is left to be revealed is: what the German constitution was saying about that action having in mind it was 1995....because, as I told you, I remember the discussion in Bundestag prior the attack on Serbia in 1999, and it came out that German forces, by any chance, couldn't be "found in actions" out of Germany....... 
Members of my family did bomb/shell Germany (where another part of the future family was living as it happens), which presumably included military posts. Since there was a genocide going on at the time, and Germany was guilty of a war of aggression against its neighbours, I'm fine with it. Since Serbia and its proxy was committing ethnic cleansing/genocide, and had a record to invading its neighbours (Slovenia ring any bells?), I don't have any immediate issue with bombing Serbs during these conflicts. About the only mitigating factor seems to be the fact that everyone was dirty in the Yugoslav wars. I don't see however that this can be used as an excuse by any single party.
...just start using the brain....or google...
- By wat0n
- By Potemkin
- By Saeko