Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Having read some of your other posts on ET, I didn't really expect you wold buy the theory, even though it is clearly presented.

First, I've noticed you take advantage of every opportunity to mention Serb "genocide" in Bosnia. Given your knowledge of ex-Yugoslav events, to the point of providing details of Madeleine Albright's emotinal reactions to specific events at Rambouillet, how is it possible that you are not aware that the International Court of Justice ruled in February 2007 that Serbia did not commit genocide in Bosnia. If you are aware of this ruling, why do you personally persist in calling it genocide ? Are you in posession of some evidence that the the ICJ did not have at the time it made its verdict ?

Regarding your affirmation that war was the result of blunder and not design, I can only repeat what I said in my article. If the world's most powerful state commits blunders of this nature, we all have reason to be gravely concerned. Given the US administration's track record of blunders in the Balkans, I can only urge the Europeans to thank Ms Rice for her efforts in Kosovo and show her the way back to Washington. I am certain that the EU would have much better chances of finding acceptable, peaceful solutions in its own back yard without US "support".

by vladimir on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 11:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
75,000 Bosnian Muslims killed. Do you think all of them were involved in fighting?

I do have an expansive definition for genocide. I admit. But I see no harm in that. Just don't slaughter a lot of people and you can avoid the genocide label.

That being said, I don't think Kosovo was a genocide. You see the difference?

I presented my case about the US's interests in the Balkans. You haven't refuted it. So, I guess I can't agree with your final comments. I seriously want to know why the US was not in lockstep with EU countries at the beginning of the Balkan wars.

by Upstate NY on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 11:42:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A number of reasons could explain why the US was not in phase with the EU (Germany) on this one in the 1980s and 90s
> because Germany was charting its own course at the time without prior US "approval"
> because of disagreements about the new perimeters of influence in the region (namely between US and Germany)
> because of disagreement about who would get which ex Yugoslav asset (mines, industry, real estate)

... culminated in public maneuvering which exposed rifts between the US and its European (German) ally.

by vladimir on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 04:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So now Germany and the US have colonized the ex-Yugoslavia? Is this what the EU is about as well? A division of spoils?
by Upstate NY on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 04:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, I really wouldn't rule it out. We need a revolution.
by vladimir on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 05:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But it appears that the ICJ ruled that Serbia had failed to prevent genocide in Bosnia, and that Serb forces had committed "acts of genocide".
Because the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a consequence of instability in the wider region of the former Yugoslavia, and due to the involvement of neighboring countries Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro, there was long-standing debate as to whether the conflict was a civil war or a war of aggression. Most Bosniaks and many Croats claimed that the war was a war of Serbian and Croatian aggression, while Serbs often considered it a civil war. A trial took place before the International Court of Justice, following a 1993 suit by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro alleging genocide (see Bosnian genocide case at the International Court of Justice). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling of 26 February 2007 effectively determined the war's nature to be international, thus exonerating Serbia of responsibility for the genocide committed by Serb forces of Republika Srpska. The ICJ concluded, however, that Serbia failed to prevent genocide committed by Serb forces and failed to punish those who carried out the genocide, especially general Ratko Mladić, and bring them to justice.

Despite the evidence of widespread killings, the siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture conducted by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča, as well as camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosnian Muslims were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia.[4] The court concluded that the crimes, including mass killings, rapes, detentions, destruction and deportation, committed during the 1992-1995 war, were "acts of genocide" according to the Genocide Convention, but that these acts did not, in themselves, constitute genocide per se.[5] The Court further decided that, following Montenegro's declaration of independence in May 2006, Serbia was the only respondent party in the case, but that "any responsibility for past events involved at the relevant time the composite State of Serbia and Montenegro".[6]

Source: Wikipedia - War in Bosnia and Herzegovina
by Gag Halfrunt on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 03:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Everyone can only decide these questions for themselves. The ICJ is a political body just like any other. I would not take their word as gospel.
by Upstate NY on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 03:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are aware of course that the idea you offer of the ICJ being a political body like any other casts doubt on any "official" figure produced; Red Cross estimates for Srebrenica,  UN figures for killings in Fallujah, OECD figures for election results in Ukraine... you name it.

Which suits me just fine 'coz in general, I extremely skeptical of what they have to say. :)

by vladimir on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 06:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bad idea to take Wikipedia as a sourc for debate on this one... really.
by vladimir on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 04:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the world's most powerful state commits blunders of this nature, we all have reason to be gravely concerned.

Yes, we do.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 15th, 2007 at 01:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series