Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 08:08:36 BST From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org> Subject: Bosnia- lifting the embargo Although seems often to expect to get into a fight, and does, I think Leo asks very penetrating questions. [Sorry if that sounds patronising but I wanted to comment on a phenomenon of this list which has been puzzling me for some time. Be that as it may, the question below requires an answer, whatever the counter reply may be] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: LeoCasey-AT-aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 11:47:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Yugoslavia -Reply Question --- For those who favor lifting the arms embargo: how do you respond to the argument that lifting the embargo (indeed, even announcing a lifting of the arms embargo) will lead to the removal of the UN peacekeeping forces, and the massacre/ethnic cleansing of Bosnians in Gorazde, Sarajevo, etc. before any meaningful arms get to Bosnia? (Dole and the Congressional Repubilcans are not about to supply arms, just to lift the embargo.) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Answer by Chris B: ------------------ Bodies of armed men are a conflict-management mechanism of almost all societies. The situation in former Yugoslavia became dangerously unstable not only because there was disagreement about dividing up economic resources and about the right to secession, but because there was a great disparity in the access to arms at the time that contradictions became antagonistic. As a result the Serbs opposing secession had access particularly to heavy artillery which could pound cities indefinitely. The answer to heavy artillery is either air power, but that is not quite as accurate as those who would believe in the wonders of High Tech would imply, or arming infantry to atttack and seize the gun emplacements. The Bosian soldiers are extraordinarily highly motivated to save their homes. The defenders of Zepa hung out for a week longer than anyone expected. They should be given arms on a very clear condition that they respect the Geneva convention. It is in their interests to do so. Their political position is that the majority of the inhabitants of Bosnia voted to secede to maintain a multi-racial society, rather than to form a greater Serbia. They know by geography that they must cooperate with people on the Dalmatian coast and with Croats. There is a suburb of Sarajevo that is predominately Serb. They must handle relations with Serbs fairly. It is not in their interests to persecute Serbs. So how should the arming be done: by trusting people on a graduated but rational basis. What is in common in the policy of all the imperialist powers over Yugoslavia is that they have not based themselves on a trust of the people. They have therefore become preoccupied with what is going to happen to "their" boys in blue helmets, who are going to be taken hostage. I am very pleased with the large House of Representatives vote on lifting the arms embargo, because whatever the many cynical political factors that may have gone into it, this is a vote that is not anti-muslim. How should the arms be delivered? The terms of the conditions are critical. No one is in favour of a blood bath. But that is what is so hypocritical in the handling of the news by the British government, as if anyone would. The condition in the resolution that the defenders must wait 12 weeks after the "off" is ridiculous and in discussions will emerge as ridiculous if it has not done so already. Arms should have been dropped to allow the defenders of Zepa to hold out, until it became quite clear to the Serb attackers that they would never succeed in displacing more people, and it would be in their interests to negotiate. Arms should be dropped to Gorazde. As for Sarajevo, we will soon be reaching the 50th anniversary of the glorious (touch of irony here) Berlin Airlift. Nobody can convince me it cannot be done again. I am not so much in favour as Jerry, [but I respect him for grasping the nettle too] of the use of air power. But if it is necessary to hit gun emplacements around Sarajevo or Gorazde, to enforce the exclusion zone, I do not see why that should not be done. But there could be discussions with the Bosnian government about whether there are infantry options for taking certain positions out. Anyway Knin may be hostage too soon and that might be a basis for negotiations about Sarajevo. British wingeing about our boys in blue helmets should be dealt with by contingency plans, of course using the SAS to get them out without a scratch, and it must be made clear that control of food supplies to force people to leave their homes through starvation is a centuries old weapon of war, and arms should be titrated again until food and other vital supplies are guaranteed to everyone in their current homes. Conflict management and trauma reducing policies, relying on local civil society are a vital part of reconstruction. [It is not that there is a revolutionary proletariat in the former Yugoslavia waiting for a massive revolution. Faith in the masses is a question of recognising *now* the existence of hundreds of thousands of people of good will and ability on all sides who will wish to work for the reconstruction of human society and *backing* them. That is the really revolutionary position in August 1995.] Now the news has gone quiet because the western media sympathise with the Croat government and it has the carefully amassed power either to take Krajina, or to force massive concessions. At the very least we should expect that the Serbs will have to agree to northern Krajina being demilitarised to remove the rocket sites from which Zagreb civilians were shelled, and probably to provide continuity of supplies to the Bihac region so that it can never fall to Serb attack. What should the democratic people do? Judging from the displacements from Western Slavonia, following the Croat capture earlier this year, the left should be demanding that western governments get the clearest specifications from Croatia about respecting human rights, including the right to live in your own home, in any part of Croatia they are seeking to bring back under their state control. That is a very clear proposition, and could reduce the suffering of tens of thousands and the deaths of at least thousands. [Very modest estimate made so as not to sound despairing, but the situation is not despairing. Actually we are moving from chaotic blitzkreig in which there were many deaths to one of stabilising borders with more careful planning, where supply routes and discipline of soldiers makes a difference. The stage after this is that in an advanced capitalist society you have to trade across borders.] Leo, It was a very important question, and I am sure there are holes in my answer. It was not the point of my post to imply that I have a perfect solution on my own but to say we can move towards a more coherent and even marxist, left-wing democratic response, and if we do that it makes it easier to know how to criticise our own governments and link up with democrats and socialists of good will in the former Yugoslavia. Chris Burford, London --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005