PEOPLES PRESS INTERNATIONAL (PPI)
- - -
a public service of CADRE (Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance)
http://cyberjournal.org
- - -
ppi.016-A Croation view re Bosnian conflict
- - -
Republication permission granted for
non-commercial and small-press use
with all sig & header info incorporated (in some form), please.
Note from publisher:
Originally we saw Bob Djurdjevic's statement on events in Bosnia, Serbia,
et al. Then we've had some dialog, which included among other things my
own analysis, limited as it is, and now (below) we have the views of Steve
Tomljenovic. Bob's commments were from the Serb side, while Steve's are
from the point of view of one of Croation descent.
I think this is a healthy debate and I hope you find it of interest. For
me at least, by hearing the various sides, I'm learning infinitely more
than from all the years of mass-media propaganda we've been exposed to.
There is only one part of Steve's remarks I would like to comment on, the
rest I simply pass on without comment and without endorsement. He suggests
that if blame is to be allocated to Western leaders, he would include Bush
in the indictment, but not Clinton.
What I would like to say here is a generic comment about US foreign
policy... In my humble opinion, there is no real difference between Bush
and Clinton, or between Republicans and Democrats -- what _seem to be
differences are simply different PR spins. US policy over the past ten
years or so must be seen as _continuous and _coherent. It doesn't _seem
that way if you follow the mass media, as many of us do, because that's
nothing but lies. Bush was the "bad cop" and Clinton is the "good cop" (if
you're a "liberal"), whereas Clinton is the "bad cop" and Bush was the
"good cop" (if you're a "conservative").
One _seems to be "on your side" and the other doesn't. The truth is
_neither one of them is or was on your side -- that is unless you are part
of the corporate elite! (Do we have any of those on the list??)
At least that's how I see it.
Regards to tall,
Richard K. Moore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:13:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Tomljenovic <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: ppi-014- Dialog with 'jacob' re: Thoughts about a better world
hi-
First, before I begin on what is obviously an extremely complicated
subject, I want to say I admire your other democratic efforts, have many
thoughts along the same line. However, this is an issue that strikes
close to home, as I am myself of Croatian descent.
>
> I agree with you that Serbs have been guilty of atrocious crimes against
> humanity. But the Croats and the non-Serbian Bosnians have _also been
> guilty of atrocious crimes against humanity, and in fact, if you look at
> the total population shifts that have occurred, the _Serbs are the ones
> that have been most thoroughly ejected from their homelands, the most
> thoroughly `ethnically cleansed'.
This is not a complete answer. First, Croat and Bosnian atrocities pale
in comparison to Serb atrocities. Also, it is undeniable that many of the
Bosnian and Croat atrocities were in response to the original serb
attacks. For example, if your family was decipated with chainsaws by
Serbs, which was not an uncommon tactic, would this not make you angry
enough to commit the same acts in return?
What essentially makes the Serbs completely guilty in the war is that most
of their attrocities were commited against a defensless enemy. The Croats
and Bosnians had no weapons to defend themselves when the Serb controlled
JNA (Yugoslav Army) and militia gangs attacked them. The vast majority
of Serb attrocities were commited at the begining of the war against
defenseless civilians.
Third, most Serbs left their homes volutarily. For example, despite
claims by Serbs and ones made in the news media, Operation Storm where
Croats and Bosians reclaimed much of the territory, was absolutely not
ethinic cleansing. Serbs were not forced from their homes. They left of
their own volition before Croat and Bosnian troops moved in. Whereas,
during Serb ethinic cleansing campaigns, people where forcefull evicted
from their homes. Now, the reason the Serbs left is because most of them
were guilty of committing atrocities, and they feared both reprisals and
being brought to justice. Again, they were never forced from their homes,
and were actually asked to stay.
Finally, if one compares the state of Serbs in Croatia versus those
remaining in Serbia, it is undeniable that Serbs in Croatia, though they
may not be liked by the populace, fair much better than Croats in Serbia.
Croats in Serbia are still being evicted from their homes, and severly
discriminated against. Serbs in Croatia can live fairly normal lives.
>
> Is taking sides by outsiders helping the situation? I think not, and I
> suggest it is necessary to look at the bigger picture... _Who is really
> responsible for the mess in former Yuoglavia? Who is _benefitting from
> events there, and what lies have they been telling us over the mass media?
Originally, the news media was completely on the side of the Serbs. This
was when the Bush administration, along with England, actively supported
the Serbia aggression. The serbs were original unwilling to attack, but
Mr Baker gave them the green light to go ahead. Thus we heard nonsense
like Serbs pinning down 12 German divisions during WWII, and therefore,
NATO could not go in and put an end to the mess. Now, the question is,
why would US and England support serbs so actively? First, Mr. Bakers
wife is Serbian (and if anyone thinks wives don't have influence, look at
Hillary Clinton). Second, Mr Egelberger was ambassador to ex-yugoslavia
for many years and had millions invested there. Third, the Serbian royal
family fled to england during WWII and have intermarried with the english
royal family, which gave them enourmous influence. Fourth, Serbs were
active double agents during the cold war, providing the West with
information on Soviet activities. So supporting them was a payback for
their help. Fifth, fear of an Islamic state in the middle of Europe.
Sixth, Croats have strong cultural ties with central europe, noteably
Germans, and England, along with France, did not want Croatians to be able
to be economically and political intergrated with them.
>
> The fact is that Yugoslavia has been _intentionally destabilized by outside
> forces; the suffering has been callously _imposed by major powers pursuing
> their own geopolitical agendas.
Yes, and it began with English and US meddling. If the US kept the
Serbians guns at bay, which they could have easily done, then this whole
mess would have never started.
>
> The whole thing started when Germany arm-twisted the European Commission
> into recognizing Croat independence. Observers at the time _knew and
> _predicted that Croat independence would inevitably lead to a similar
> Bosnian demand, and that the result would be bloody civil war. Germany and
> the US cooperated in permitting the slaughter to go on for years, making no
> serious attempt to `calm the waters', sitting back and watching things
> develop just the way they wanted them to develop, completely unconcerned
> with the human suffering they themselves are ultimately respnsible for.
Absolutely incorrect. The Germans got involved after the war began and
the UN upheld the absolutely unjust policy of with holding weapons from
Croatians. They pushed for the recognition for Croatian statehood because
this was the only way the embargo could get lifted.
Now, did the Croatians have a right to demand statehood? Undoubtedly yes.
If we trace the history of Yugoslavia, we see it is an illegitamate state.
Yugoslavia was given to the Serbs after Versaille in WWI as spoils of war,
as well as to break up Austria-Hungary, and Croatian people were never
asked if they wanted to join this union. Furthermore, when the Croatian
people began to assert their democratic rights in the late 20's, their
leader was assinated, and Serbian king declared martial law and turned
Yugoslavia into a dictatorship. Croatians were then stripped of rights
and treated as second class citizens until WWII, their plight catching the
eyes of leading humanitarians of the day, even Albert Einstien.
This came to an end when Hitler invaded, established a puppet government
that commited attrocities much like all the other totalitarian
institutions of the period. It should be noted that Serbs were just as
guilty of attrocities. One instance, toward the end of the war, and done
with British aid, killed 150,000 defenseless refugess.
After WWII, Yugoslavia was turned into a communist state under Tito. Even
though he was croatian, yugoslavia remained a serb controlled state. The
evidence can be seen in that one, croatians were treated as second class,
and a large segment of them emigrating abroad. Two, the Serbs controlled
most important positions, and the army officer core was serbian.
So for 70 years, Croats and other ethnic groups lived under Serbian
domination in a state that they did not want to belong to and never
consented to join. Pretty much everyone there knew that Yugoslavia would
dissolve when Tito died. Though it didn't happen until the fall of the
other communist states, after 1980 when Tito did die, there was constant
political problems. These cuminated at the end of the 80's when Croats
and Slovenes, pushed for a confederation, as they were averse to outright
succession. This proposal was rejected by the Serbs. Therefore, the
Croats and Slovenes had no choice but to seceed.
Why did the Serbs want control? Despite all these nonsense about age old
ethnic rivalries, which has no basis in history, as antagonism there is a
20th century phenomena, and religious conflicts, the main reason was an
economic one. Croatia and Slovienia, though only 30% of the population,
accounted from 65% of the GNP. Croatia also has the extremely lucrative
Dalmation coast, which is a haven for tourists. So if they left, Serbs
would be in econmic ruins, as they essentially lived of Croat and Slovenes
backs. Also, Serbs have a nationalistic dream of Greater Serbia, which
means that wanted as much land as possible.
So, the Croats had a right to seceed because 1) Yugoslavia was never a
legitamate state to begin with. 2) They push for a peaceful *compromise*
through confederacy which was rejected by the Serbs. So when the UN
pushed for an arms embargo, which was unjust and clearly an action that
would benefit the serbs who had a monopoly on one of the largest armies in
Europe, Germany actually did the just action by acting on behalf of
Croats, as noone else was. The slaughter already began, and it was clear
that Serbs, despite their military advantage, would be unable to retake
Croatia. What the UN should have done at the point was to put troops in
Bosnia as they had done in Macedonia to prevent the conflict from
spreading. But of course, such an action would go against plans to
support Serbia.
The slaughter continued to be sanctioned by the UN, supported by England
and France, and it wasn't until Bush, Mitterand of France and Young John
Major, all active Serb supporters, got kicked out office that the world
community, lead by Clinton (who because of this got nominated for a Nobel)
was able to bring an end to the slaughter. Thoughout, Lord Owen and Lord
Carrington, as well as Mr Carl Bildt, were actively supporting Serbs. Mr
Carrington even was stamping out munitions in Serbia labeled "Made in
England".
>
> If justice is ever to be done, it will only be when the _US and _German
> leaders are called before an International War-Crimes Tribunal, for this
> and countless other crimes, including the arming of Iraq with biological
> weapons and the genocide in Africa (for which the French leaders also need
> to be called to account).
Not German ones, or Mr Clinton. I'll give you the real list right here:
Mr George Bush
Mr Eagelburger
Mr Baker
Young John Major
Mr Mitterand
Queen of England
>
> What are they getting out of it? What are the geopolitical objectives in
> the Balkans that justify (in the minds of the US and German elites)
> limitless human suffering?...
Croatia is not a Balkan nation. The Balkan mountains end in serbia. The
croatian people were part of Austria-Hungary for 800 years, and are
culturally part of western europe. I have no idea how anyone can say they
are a Balkan people. There is no historical, cultural, or geographic
justification for this.
Again, Germain elites and the Clinton presidency deserve a meddle for
resolving the mess that others created.
>
> ...For _Germany, it is simply the rebuilding of the traditional German
> sphere-of-influence, accomplishing by other means what Hitler described
> in Mein Kampf, and which he failed to accomplish by direct military
> means. The destablization of Yugoslavia, the expansion of NATO, and the
> economic destablization of the former USSR, are all tactics in support
> of the Mein Kampf agenda: the domination of Central and Eastern Europe
> by Germany, and the subjugation of the Slavic races by the Germanic
> race.
Croatians are a mixed people. Not only slavic, but part Roman/Illyrian.
Also, the Croat tribe is believed to have orginated in Iran. (Iran means
Arayan.) So, they probably have strong German roots as well. Hitler
actually admired them, and they were the only slavic speaking peoples
allowed to fight alongside Germans. Also, the Dalmation coast is a
favorite vacation destination for Germans.
>
> ...For the _US, there are two obectives that are being served. First is
> control over the rich oil fields in the region. Second is the
> establishment of the US military as the `legitimate' global policeman.
Actually, tourism is probably a the most lucrative development in that
region. BTW, remember when Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and all those big
businessmen were killed in a plane crash when they were running around the
region looking at what they were gonna buy up? Well, the two individuals
who were running the air traffic control tower at the time of the crash
were assinated the following day. Leads one to believe that the incident
was no accident...
>
> Whereas the world used to recoil at US interventionism, recognizing it as
> US imperialism (in Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama, and numerous other
> places), the world now has been hoodwinked into _welcoming US intervention
> in Iraq and in Bosnia. By manipulating events, and by controlling the lies
> in the global mass media, the US has _created a situation where it can get
> by with its adventurism.
I think the Clinton administration has had quite a problem handed to them,
and they have been using their influence to get out of it. So the media
maniputation you claim has been an attempt, I believe, to right the wrongs
that were begun by the Bush administration.
>
> The formula is simple: first stir up trouble, and then pretend to be
> `solving' the problem, while in fact pursuing undisclosed goals.
>
Again, much different scenerio of events:
Give Serbs green light, while denoucing Croats as dangerous Nazi fascist
collaberators. Futhermore, deny arms on some sort of nonsensical argument
to keep the conflict from spreading, while at the same time saying
intervetion is impossible because Serbs are "ferocious" fighters. BTW, I
find the last one very funny, because the serbs had all the tanks,
artillary, and weapons, and they were still unable to beat the Croats. For
example, during the seige of Vukovar, tens of thousand of serbs regulars
were unable to take the town which was only defended by a ragtag group of
2000 croatian defenders, fighting with hunting rifles and molitoff
cocktails. Serbs took extremely heavy losses, and were only able to take
the town after completely leveling the town by systematically mortoring
every square meter. What a joke...
Then, after the serbs could not take anymore, their gains were
consolidated by the UN through the use of "safe-havens" so that weapons
could be restricted from the Bosnians, who were gaining the upper hand
against Serb aggression. For example, if Operation Storm was not halted
by the US, all of Bosnia would have been in Croat and Bosnian hands.. The
Serbs were essentially crumbling under their own decadence.
> If Bob Djurdjevic is the one with the energy and insight to expose this
> kind of perfidy, then I'm willing to publish his views, even if I don't
> agree with everything he says.
He is a total serb apologist. I'm sorry, but I do not trust what the man
says. If you don't believe me, look at history and the facts. Nothing I
have said here can be refuted.
> for truth and revolution,
likewise,
steve tomljenovic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Seeking an Effective Democratic
Response to Globalization
and Corporate Power"
---
an international workshop for activist leaders
June 25 <incl> July 2 - 1998 - Nova Scotia - Canada
---
Restore democratic sovereignty
Create a sane and livable world
Bring corporate globalization under control.
CITIZENS FOR A DEMOCRATIC RENAISSANCE (CADRE)
mailto:•••@••.•••
http:http://cyberjournal.org
---
To subscribe to renaissance-network, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
---
To subscribe to cj, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
---
To review cj archives, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
Share: