The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Again, your understanding of the events does not correspond to the timeline. There was no training of KLA guerillas in 1991. I really can't see how you make the claim that the US was against recognition and for training the KLA at the same time. It is, frankly, preposterous.
Lastly, it wasn't just Germany that the US was against. You paint the picture that France was also against it. Here are articles about the US's disagreement with the EC:
I've only asked you a thousand times, but tell me what the US gains by disagreeing with the ENTIRE EC at the time. What literally is to be gained?
Europe, on the other hand was AGAINST recognition, except for Germany:
The CFSP established by Maastricht immediately proved itself inadequate in dealing with the crisis in Yugoslavia. EU diplomacy worked on the assumption that problems could be solved by tinkering with the structure of the Yugoslav federation, rather than seeing the federation itself as the source of the problem. The EU's refusal to recognize the secession from the federation of Croatia (despite the fact that this was the will of 92 per cent of the vote in Croatia's referendum) led Germany to threaten to recognize Croatia unilaterally. Unwilling to break ranks from a determined Germany which was prepared to smash the very CFSP it had advocated so strongly if it did not get its own way, the rest of the EU caved in and followed Bonn's lead.
And the NYT says the same - December 15th 1991:
Chancellor Helmut Kohl's spokesman, Dieter Vogel, said on Friday that the Bonn Government would wait until after a meeting of European Community foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday before announcing recognition, which has been opposed by the United Nations, the United States and by the European Community. But officials made clear that Bonn's decision would not be affected by the outcome of Monday's meeting.
It's not a failure of your English. It's a failure of your logic. We are discussing here whether the US was initially predisposed to the breakup of Yugoslavia. The fact that they recognized the secessionists later while the KLA was being trained is not being disputed at all. This is the essence of my very first post on this subject.
You write: "I know that the training of the KLA came later - I mentioned it to support my thesis that the US has been supportive of secessionist movements throughout ex-Yugoslavia.""
How does that support your thesis if it came later AFTER the US recognized the new republics? It doesn't support your thesis at all.
"Europe, on the other hand was AGAINST recognition, except for Germany:"
I just linked to you in the previous post NY Times articles which showed that the US was AGAINST recognition even as the entire EC was for it.
Please explain to me why it benefits the US to refuse recognition even while Ireland and Norway elect to recognize?
What deal with Bonn?
What are you talking about?
Let's go back to 1991. The CIA plans for the breakup of Yugoslavia since the 70s.The "right" people are promoted to power - or supported by the US and Germany once they made it to the top. The arms are delivered in the 80s. Everything's ready to roll, when all of a sudden, the Soviet Union collapses. This provides an opportunity to the US to extend its influence over all of ex-Yugoslavia... which it tries to do, putting it at odds with Germany, on the other hand, which wants to consolidate its influence over an independent Slovenia and Croatia. There's disagreement about spheres of influence and who gets what. Political maneuvering ensues.
Me, I also do that on occasion: there are two kinds of people in this world, I say, the kind of people who split the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.
If you are referring to my lack of "proof" regarding US German collusion, yes it's vague. Tudjman wasn't a buddy of mine. Neither was Slobodan. James & George even less. No, I don't have first hand accounts of the politics at play in January 1992 and this is not the kinda stuff you find on the newspaper stands. But that wasn't even the subject of my thesis.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 1
by gmoke - Nov 301 comment
by Oui - Nov 3010 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8