The Bosnian War of 1994 is a very confusing conflict to study, but it certain things need to be said about it. That conflict had been raging for 800 years previous between ethnic Albanians who were muslim, Croats, and Serbs.Clinton's administration painted the picture that the Serbs were shooting everything that wasn't Serb in the former Yugoslavia(almost true), but that the other parties were victimized and innocent. While it is true Serb paramilitary groups carried out "ethnic cleansing" in areas of Bosnia in order to create a "Greater Serbia," they were far from the only guilty party. All three groups slaughtered each other in turn, without exception. The Croatians declared independence (which the UN recognized) and moved into Bosnia Herzogovinia and began attacking muslims and bosnian serbs. They even decided to bring back the flag of the fascist Croatian puppet regime of WWII in order to madden the Serbs and Muslims. In turn, muslim resistance groups executed Croats and Bosnian Serbs. And finally the Serbs laid waste to muslim and croatian populations. There was no clear victim nor was there a clear criminal. We shouldn't have pounded Serb positions as hard as we did for as long as we did without also striking the Croatian military and muslim resistnace groups commiting crimes. All three groups should have been brought before the Haugue to face war crimes charges.
Yes, but he did go through NATO. Probably weaker as a matter of international law, but just as good diplomatically.
So how was NATO misguided? And try not explaining it in a 400 word paragraph please. We all know that only losers get prosecuted for the things they did during a war. There are some small exceptions to this, but Milosevic was/is a mad man. I was bothered during this time, because we did nothing in Rwanda, except sit, while 100,000s were slaughtered.
I really don't think there is a distinction that really matters much diplomatically in that under Bosnia we went in under Nato and in Iraq we did not. We have a collection of countries that are supporting our war effort. Nato to be quite frank was exceeding its mandate at the time, I thought. Nato's sole purpose is to mutually defend against an attack against one of its members. I don't understand how using this alliance is any different than the "collection of willing" or whatever the hell the US is calling its collection of allies.
Strictly speaking, you are right regarding NATO's defensive mandate. However, I think a compelling argument can be made that a) with the consensus of the organization's states, it was a legally and morally defensible use of the organization's power as well as b) a logical post-Cold War extension of their mandate to ensure peace in Europe. Bottom line, it was a legitimate exercise of multilateral security within NATO’s area of concern. The sad thing was that it did not come five years earlier.
The UN allows for other international organizations to act. NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia was completely legal. The same applied for EU intervention, had they bothered. This "Clinton didn't bother to go through the UN" talking point is, surprise, yet another "creative interpretation of facts."
To be quite honest, I have never heard this before. Where does the UN allow for other international organizations (in particular a military one like NATO to act) and not say a collection of countries like the US has. I would really like to see this.
@ mannyfresh - the albanians had nothing to do with war in Bosnia - The serbs attacked in Slovenia, then in Crotia. After that Slovenia and Craoatia got independent. It weren´t the croats who came to Bosnia to kill Muslims and Serbs in the first place. Where did you get this? No doubt that all parties are guilty in this war! domingo
It's really dangerous when people mix a lot of lies in with truthful statements. Some naive people will read this and believe every word of it, because mixed in with the lies (Albanians? Shouldn't have pounded the Serbs because we didn't pound the Croats? etc etc) there are some truths.
> That conflict had been raging for 800 years > previous between ethnic Albanians who were > muslim, Croats, and Serbs. The conflict was not consistent, and it is not inevitable that they would always fight. When things were good in Yugoslavia, there was very little animosity. And the largest group of Muslims were not Albanians. > While it is true Serb paramilitary groups carried > out "ethnic cleansing" in areas of Bosnia in order > to create a "Greater Serbia," they were far from > the only guilty party. They were the ones that started it, and they killed orders of magnitude more than the other parties combined. > The Croatians declared independence (which the > UN recognized) and moved into Bosnia > Herzogovinia and began attacking muslims and > bosnian serbs. The Croatian army didn't go anywhere - they were busy fighting in their own nation in a war against Serbia. They didn't have enough equipment and men for defending their own nation, let alone attacking another. It was the ethnic Croats in Bosnia that were fighting in that civil war. Outside of Mostar, Croats did not attack Muslims and there was no plan of ethnic clensing them. The fighting in Mostar was horrible and pathetic, but it was due to local politics and should not be used as a guide to the greater war. > They even decided to bring back the flag of the > fascist Croatian puppet regime of WWII in order > to madden the Serbs and Muslims. The Grb (a shield with red and white checks) is a symbol that is over 1000 years old. It has always been the symbol of Croatia, and you can find it within regional and administrative flags of communist Yugoslavia. > There was no clear victim nor was there a clear > criminal. Of course there was. It was part of the Yugoslav constitution that each administrative region had the right to secede. When Croatia and then Bosnia seceeded, they were attacked by the Serbian army with plans to forcibly re-unite Yugoslavia. Within Bosnia, local Serbs were incited by the Serbian governemnt to begin the program of ethnic clensing. From this, ethnic clensing and murders took place on all sides in Bosnia, but it took place within the overall structure of Serbia pulling the strings. To stop the conflict, it was the Serbs that needed to be stopped. > We shouldn't have pounded Serb positions as > hard as we did for as long as we did without also > striking the Croatian military and muslim > resistnace groups commiting crimes. Bombing does nothing to stop criminals on any side. In Bush the Elder's plan, the US would cut off weapons to the Muslims and Croats so that the Serbs would win and retake Bosnia. That didn't work. Only after Serbia was convinced to stop fueling the civil war by NATO bombing could the war come to an end. > All three groups should have been brought before > the Haugue to face war crimes charges. All three groups have people facing charges at the Haugue, and all three have people that have been convicted.
From my limited understanding of Bosnia, the UN attempted to pass a resolution regarding Bosnia. It didn't get past the security council (Russia veto I think). Did they later pass a resolution authorizing Nato force? Or is this something in the UN charter with regards to other international forces are allowed to act without a UN mandate? I am unaware of the fact that the UN passed a resolution authorizing NATO to take care of Bosnia. Please educate me if I am wrong. I thought Nato after the veto just went in alone if you will.
Ironic, but I hear that France will help in the Gulf War II if chemical weapons are used. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.france.chemicals/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.chemical/index.html Both links are based on hypothetical scenarios. Also, while we enjoy the freedon fries jabs, the French have really good special forces type guys who could really help the US efforts. This came from Fox News in studio general. Sorry, I don't care to look up his name.
Yeah...I got that part. http://www.hr/hrvatska/WAR/UNPF-chron.html That should give you some background of the UN mission in Croatia and Bosnia. NATO stepped in because of the UN's request for more support from its member states. Sorry this is so baffling to you.
Damn Loney take a chill pill. Like I said, I had limited knowledge of the situation. Thanks for the link. I understand your frustration as my limited knowledge was completely wrong. I apologize. FWIW, I didn't see the word NATO anywhere on the link you provided.
> FWIW, I didn't see the word NATO anywhere on the link you provided. Because the link was just about Croatia, and NATO was not involved there.
Well, not in 1995. NATO didn't step in until after the Dayton Peace Accords. HTown, I apologize for being snotty, I thought you were being sarcastic. I admit to picking the first site I could find that established the UN presence in the Balkans. There are lots of dead links on this subject. Hopefully this one is a little clearer as to the relationship between NATO and the UN in Bosnia.
I guess people on these boards just don't admit to having very limited knowledge very often. Everyone knows everything on these boards. Oh well, no big deal, I am seriously just trying to get a little bit more educated on the subject. I have a recollection of events based on my memories, but obviously it wasn't even close.
Oh, and to give you a view of how people like being under United States control, my parents' relatives living in Bosnia were calling them to get them to vote for Bush last election, thinking that he would take the oppressors home. We told them it wasn't likely to happen no matter who was in power.
Why do ppl here post with such conviction they're right and then when someone points out their gross missunderstanding of the topic they go berserk?? domingo:"No doubt that all parties are guilty in this war!" At least don't put the "!" it only accentuates your ignorance. If you consider the right of self-defense to be 'guilt' then what else is to say? Serbia's extremists organized brutal aggression first against Croatia, then Bosnia. Ammong 60 or so (I forgot the exact numbers) arrested war criminals: Around 50 are Serbs, 6 or so are Croats, and there are 3 bosnian Muslims (at least one of which is allowed to defend from freedom). Well over 200,000 ppl were killed, 80% of which were bosnian muslims, mainly executed in WW2-style concentration camps. I happened to spend some time in one of these in a north-western city so I speak from a first-hand experience. Bosnian-muslim side didn't have a single conc. camp and never stepped foot on either Serbian or Croatian territory, yet you talk about 'equal guilt'? Btw, I came here just to read about Bosnia-Denmark soccer game and all I could find was this bull$hit...