[Peace-discuss] FW: Srebrenica Genocide: Prof. Francis Boyle: Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN?
Boyle, Francis A
fboyle at illinois.edu
Tue Mar 6 15:28:23 UTC 2018
I gave this interview on June 23, 1995, when I was doing everything
humanly possible to prevent the oncoming massacre/genocide at
Srebrenica, an officially designated "safe area" by the United Nations
Security Council.
RIP.
Fab.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (Voice)
217-244-1478 (Fax)
(personal comments only)
-----Original Message-----
From: msanews at msanews.mynet.net [mailto:msanews at msanews.mynet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:01 PM
To: msanews at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Prof. Francis Boyle: Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN?
________________________________________________________________________
____
__ __________ _ _______ ______
/ |/ / __/ _ | / |/ / __/ | /| / / __/
/ /|_/ /\ \/ __ |/ / _/ | |/ |/ /\ \
/_/ /_/___/_/ |_/_/|_/___/ |__/|__/___/
Support MSANEWS, a project of learning and enlightenment
"A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste"
[ see footer for contact and other pertinent information ]
________________________________________________________________________
____
Source: Direct Submission
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:36:03 -0500
Title: Is Bosnia the End of the UN? Yes!
By: Prof. Francis Boyle
Email: <FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU>
TEXT:
Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN?
There have been many voices calling for the restructure of the United
Nations, particularly of the representation of the non-First World
states within the General Assembly, and the operations of the Security
Council consisting of the permanent five that largely utilise the UN
for
its own political and capital interests. The inept management of the
conflicts in Bosnia by the UN have made those voices more vociferous,
with some calling for the end of the United Nations.
Francis Boyle is the Professor of International Law at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, served as the Legal Adviser to Bosnian
President Alija Izetbegovic and Foreign Minister Haris Silajdzic during
the Owen-Stoltenburg negotiations in Geneva, and represented the Bosnian
Government at the international court of justice. He won two World Court
Orders to Bosnia which the UN Security Council refused to enforce, due
to
the manipulations of Britain, Russia, France, and the US at the
diplomatic
table.
In this recent interview he outlines the background to the diplomatic
negotiations in Bosnia, the corruption and amorality of the great
powers,
and how the greed and capital interest of the West, and its anti-Muslim
actions will spell the end of the post-World War II political order.
Initially the scenario existed where the international players, or the
so-called great players, wanted to keep Yugoslavia intact, but when it
became obvious that this wasn't going to be the case, the West
introduced
a number of conferences and plans; first, the International Conference
on
Yugoslavia at the Hague, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the Owen-Stoltenburg
Plan, the Washington Plan, the Five-Nation Contact Group Plan. If these
plans violated established Human Rights, Racial Discrimination, and
Apartheid Conventions and are perceived to be illegal according to
international law, why have they been poorly conceived and attempted to
be
implemented?
The great powers have basically concluded that the Bosnians have lost
the
war, and of course, the reason the Bosnians lost the war was that the
great powers at the Security Council imposed the arms embargo upon them.
So when the signal was given by President Milosevic to attack
Bosnia--and
remember that he also took General Ratko Mladic who had destroyed
Croatia
and Vukovar, and put him in charge of the Bosnia operation--the Bosnian
people were totally defenceless. So from the great power perspective,
the
Bosnians have lost the war and, as they see it, they need to work out
some
type of deal that will effectively recognise this. Hence, the creation
of
the plans and schemes that violate every known principle of
international
law.
When I was instructed by the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to sue
Britain in November 1993, I put out a statement at the UN announcing
that
the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan violated the Genocide, Racial Discrimination,
and Apartheid Conventions--it clearly did. Anyone who knew anything at
all
about that plan would have understood that--and Cyrus Vance is an
international lawyer, he should have known better. So any of the
permanent
members of the Security Council can be sued--and the Bosnian government
is
aware of this--for violating the Genocide Convention, the Racial
Discrimination Convention and the Apartheid Convention. And I have no
problems at all in suing all of them on the basis of these three
conventions and I'm sure of winning those law suits. It's an open and
shut
case.
But the problem was that when President Izetbegovic instructed me to sue
Britain, the Bosnians were threatened. The then Bosnian Foreign Minister
Ljubijankic, who was later assassinated, was called in, basically
threatened, and told that if the Bosnian government was to continue with
the law suit, the humanitarian assistance that was being provided to the
Bosnian people would be cut. They were pressured by the French, the
Germans, and the Americans, as well as Owen and Stoltenburg, to drop the
whole case. So that's the problem, where the great powers of Europe
threaten to cut off humanitarian assistance to civilians--and the
Bosnian
people can only survive because of food brought in by the world
community.
When Bosnia goes to court to sort out its rights, which it has a perfect
right to do, the so-called protecting powers threaten starvation for
their
people. Unfortunately, the Bosnians had to go along with this as they
always have.
What are the historical connections between the Vance-Owen and
Owen-Stoltenburg Plans and the Munich Pact from 1938?
First, there needs to be an understanding of the historical evolution.
The
Vance-Owen Plan would have carved up Bosnia into ten cantons on an
ethnic
basic, but would not have destroyed Bosnia as a state. When the Serbian
President Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan
Karazdic
and his so-called parliament rejected the Vance-Owen Plan, the great
powers then moved into the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan. The Owen-Stoltenburg
Plan would have carved up the state itself--it would have destroyed the
Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent nation state.
Therefore, this plan is the modern day equivalent of the Munich Pact. It
was designed to carve up a UN member state, and would rob
Bosnia-Herzegovina of its United Nations membership--the main difference
was that the carve-up was not taking place at Hitler's lair at the
Berchtesgarten but this time the carve-up was taking place in Geneva, at
United Nations headquarters and under the auspices and supervision of
the
United Nations, the European Union and the United States Government. So
this time all the major powers of Europe and the United States were in
on
the carve-up of a sovereign member state of the United Nations.
The Vance-Owen Plan was bad, but the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have
been
the end of Bosnia's statehood and would have turned Bosnia into a new
Lebanon. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have been a total
catastrophe--to
carve up Bosnia into three pieces and rob it of its UN membership. It
was
clear that in Geneva during the so-called peace negotiations, that the
whole purpose of the exercise was to destroy the Bosnian statehood so
that
the Muslim, Jewish and non-Serb or Croat population would simply be
wiped
out. In historical terms, back in the 1930s the Jews were wiped out
because they did not have a state of their own, and the only thing that
has kept the Bosnians from completely being wiped out, fully and
completely, has been their statehood and their UN membership. Owen,
Stoltenburg, the UN, and everyone else knew that the only thing that
would
keep these people from going the way of history was their UN membership
and statehood, so they had to get rid of it.
Indeed, Owen's lawyer admitted to me and our team--we have this on file
with the World Court--that the suggestion to eliminate Bosnian statehood
came from Karazdic, the war criminal. Karazdic suggested this notion to
Owen and Stoltenburg and they approved it personally. Their lawyer then
redrafted the documents to eliminate Bosnian statehood--we have all this
on record, with witnesses, at the World Court. It reminded me of Hannah
Arendt's comment on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, about the banality
of
evil. That here were nameless, faceless bureaucrats operating in Geneva,
destroying a sovereign member state of the United Nations, knowingly
inflicting ethnic cleansing on a million-and-a-half to two million
people
and doing all of this by means of a word processor. And that is
literally
what was going on. And the plan today, the so-called Contact Group plan,
carves Bosnia up into two pieces. It will preserve the shell of the
Bosnian state, although, effectively Bosnia will be carved up. So, all
of
the discussions in the Security Council about respecting the territorial
integrity and political independence of Bosnia is nonsense. These men at
the Security Council know exactly what they are doing--that was my
assessment in dealing with them personally. They're still trying to
carve
Bosnia up, and the land that they have allocated to the so-called
federation will make Bosnia an appendage of Croatia.
The Bosnian Muslims, and the Serbs, the Croats, and the Jews loyal to
the
Bosnian government, would have never survived the Owen-Stoltenburg
carve-up if it had been implemented. The Contact Group carve-up was
designed and drafted by the US State Department. It appears that if it
were to be implemented, that those people would at least physically
survive. But ultimately Bosnia would lose its independence. So it's a
slight improvement but it still represents a violation of every known
principle of international law including a violation of the UN Charter,
a
toleration of genocide and war crimes, condoning this type of behaviour
and again, it would be tantamount to the Munich Pact. It raises the
question then, and everyone must consider this: what good is the United
Nations? If the UN is not going to be prepared to defend a member state,
but instead carve it up and destroy it, then obviously the United
Nations
has lost its utility, just as the League of Nations did when it could
not
confront Mussolini over what he did in Abyssinia in 1935. I remembered,
when I was in Geneva with President Izetbegovic, that it was Haile
Selassie that had come to Geneva in the same building to make a plea for
the powers to save Abyssinia from the Italian fascist invasion and they
didn't listen to him. Abyssinia was taken over and eventually the League
was destroyed because it could not protect small states like Austria,
Czechoslovakia, Abyssinia, and Poland from fascist invasions.
So if the UN is getting into the business of carving up UN member states
then it's not a good sign for the integrity of the United Nations. It
must
be understood that this is all being supervised by the Secretary General
of the UN--Boutros Boutros-Ghali--he knows what's going on--and at the
direction of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and
Russia--they're all in on it. And in the background the Clinton
administration is posturing, and saying 'oh, isn't it terrible what the
Europeans are doing'. This is all public relations--the US government
was
in on the carve-up just like everyone else.
The Washington Plan instigated a confederation between Croatia and
Bosnia.
Do the Serbs have a moral or legal right to set up a federation with
Serbia proper--and this has been one of their complaints--if the Bosnian
government can federate with Croatia, why can't the Bosnian Serbs
federate
with Serbia?
This is public relations machinery at work again. The Washington
Agreements were designed by the State Department to carve up Bosnia
under
the fiction of preserving the state of Bosnia, but effectively
consigning
these people to the control of Croatia. The federation with Croatia was
imposed on the Bosnians--it's not something that they wanted. It was
imposed on them, so the argument that the Serbs must have the same deal
is
just total hypocrisy. But the point is, that the Serbs have already
been
promised a confederation by the great powers. That's why the
federation-confederation was set up between Croatia and Bosnia--to
ultimately give the Serbs the same thing. The State Department and the
Pentagon admitted that the Washington Plan was just a sophisticated
carve-up under another name--I have the admissions on file. So the
Washington Plan was another design for a carve-up, to a preservation of
the fig-leaf of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina while effectively
carving it up into two. And Karadzic is still holding out for his
independent Serb state. If he were smart--which he is not--he'd go along
with the carve-up plans and he'd probably get his state in five, ten,
fifteen years from now--and that is what the ultimate agenda is within
the
Washington Plan. Just read through the documents that are being drafted
by
State Department lawyers--all you have to do is read through them and
it's
very clear that this is what the deal is. But most people don't read
these
documents, they're long, and they're complicated.
This highlights the problems within the management and respect of
international law. You did win two world courts orders on behalf of the
Bosnian government, but so far, neither respect nor implementation of
those orders has occurred. What are the difficulties associated with the
management and implementation of international law, and what are the
ramifications for the international political order?
I think that at this point, if the UN and the great powers are prepared
to
let Bosnia go down when there are two World Court orders overwhelmingly
in
Bosnia's favour on all points, then it seems to me that we're at an end
of
the international legal order that was set up in the aftermath at the
end
of World War II.
"I think we've reached a historical era now where the West has
proven its complete and total moral bankruptcy on Bosnia and has now
forfeited any moral right to leadership that it might have had in terms
of
a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, the rule of
law,
all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed in Bosnia."
Francis Boyle
When we have the UN carving up a UN member state and violating every
known
principle that the post-World War II order was expected to uphold, I
believe that we're witnessing the eclipse of the international legal
order, and I can assure everyone that that's the way that the Islamic
world sees Bosnia. If Muslims had killed a quarter-of-a-million
Christians and Jews, and Muslims had raped 30,000 Christian and Jewish
women, this war would have been over three years ago. The West would
have
never tolerated it. But when it comes to Muslim people being massacred,
every known principle of international law has been violated by the
permanent members of the Security Council, by the United Nations
organisation itself, and by all of Europe--they just do not care. Again,
as I argued at the World Court, if the UN and the World Court cannot
save
Bosnia, then what good is the UN. What is left? I think that the answer
is
nothing. And the longer this goes on, the more that will become
apparent.
It's the same with NATO. What good is NATO? Again, the answer is
nothing.
Here we have the world's largest military alliance sitting around in
Europe for 40 years with nothing to do. President Bush actually tried to
revise the mandate of NATO to put it into a peace-keeping type operation
to deal with regional threats in Eastern Europe. The first regional
threat
appears and what happens? Nothing. And it's destroying NATO from within,
and without. I'm sure that we'll see more of this in-fighting at the UN
and other types of international forum where the West has proven its
total
hypocrisy to the Third World and the Islamic world.
For what reasons are the UN and the US distorting the mandates that have
been provided to them and why has there been the lack of effective
mediation and conflict resolution in Bosnia?
It goes back to Machiavellian power politics, a situation that we saw a
decade or so before World War I where there was a reestablishment of the
triple entente between Russia, France and Britain. As they see it,
Bosnia
is not worth another world war. Of course, all three countries
unquestionably suffered terribly during World War I. Paris was almost
overrun by the Germans, the British lost an entire generation of men,
and
the Russian empire was dissolved. So their attitude is that the Bosnians
are not worth fighting for, the UN Charter isn't worth fighting for, and
above all, that as the Balkans is a nasty place there will need to be a
strongman in charge of the Balkans. That strongman, of course, is
Milosevic--the great powers can do business with Milosevic, and have
done
business with Milosevic and his predecessors, going back to Tito. Tito
was
the darling of the West as long as he was opposed to Stalin.
This is the doctrine of the policeman, that every region of the world
needs a policeman to keep it under control and Milosevic is the
policeman
in the Balkans. So we're going to have some hand-wringing and some tears
for the Bosnians but they will be sacrificed on the altar of great-power
politics. It's really a reversion to pre-World War I mentality and
pre-World War II behaviour.
Milosevic is perceived by the US and the West as someone that they can
do
business with. Is this in terms of the arms trade, or economics, or
other
geopolitical factors?
In control and domination of the Balkans. And I'm not the only one
saying
this--you can read it in the pages of the newspapers, or on the
Internet--they're all saying the West can do business with Milosevic,
not
only in respect to Bosnia, but in the whole region. He can keep it under
his thumb and keep it under control. The Balkans is a volatile
area--that's the assumption, and as far as the West is concerned there
needs be someone there to keep it under control and Milosevic can do it.
It's pretty much the replay of the Nixon doctrine. For example, the Shah
of Iran was America's policeman in the Persian Gulf. That's the notion
with Milosevic and whoever his successor might be. Putting aside the
rhetoric, the continuity between the Bush and Clinton administrations is
striking. When Yugoslavia was about to fall apart, George Bush sent his
Secretary of State, Jim Baker, to meet with Milosevic and make the
statement that the United States supports the territorial integrity of
Yugoslavia. Why? The policeman theory--the US needs Belgrade to keep the
Balkans under control and that statement by Baker effectively was the
green light to Milosevic to invade Slovenia, then to invade Croatia, and
then to invade Bosnia. And then the arms embargo was put on. If you read
the negotiated history of resolution 713 at the UN Security Council, it
was not Belgrade's suggestion to implement the arms embargo over the
former Yugoslavia, it was the United States', Britain's, France's and
Russia's suggestion in order to facilitate Milosevic in his control and
domination of the Balkans.
On the issue of the international arms embargo over the former Yugoslav
republics, the UN General Assembly voted to lift the embargo, the US
Congress voted to lift the embargo as well, yet it remains in place. Why
has the international arms embargo not been lifted, and what is the
relationship between the arms embargo, human rights and genocide
according
to the definition provided within the UN Charter?
First of all, the arms embargo was never imposed on Bosnia. Resolution
713
outlining the arms embargo was imposed on the former Yugoslavia. There
is
no Security Council resolution at all that says that the independent
Bosnia is subject to an arms embargo. The situation consisted of the
British, and the French and the Americans deciding to prevent the
government of Bosnia--a government which not only represents Muslims,
but
Serbs, and Croats and Jews and others--from defending themselves from a
genocidal assault by the Serbs, led by Milosevic, by Karadzic, and by
Mladic.
This was a conscientious decision. It was the British Navy, the French
Navy and the American Navy in the Adriatic and their Air Forces that
made
it quite clear that no weapons could go into Bosnia. They couldn't care
less about the resolution--the resolution has nothing to do with it.
Eventually Congress forced Clinton to pull out but the British and the
French are still there policing this embargo. Again, this goes back to
the
Bush policy, which was to preserve Yugoslavia as an entity at all costs
and if the Bosnians had to be sacrificed, then so be it. As the US sees
it, they're just Muslims anyway, who cares--President Bush had just
killed
a quarter-of-a-million Muslims in Iraq and no-one cared, so why should
anyone care about the dead Muslims in Bosnia. So, the great powers are
working hand-in-glove with Belgrade. And with resolution 713, the great
powers had to ask Belgrade to give them permission to put the arms
embargo
on because it was their idea, not Belgrade's. And Belgrade, after some
procrastination, went along with this because they already had enough
weapons. They had all the weapons that they would ever need and
therefore
the embargo was not going to hurt them, but hurt the Bosnians. That was
the policy and all the great powers were in on this--the US, Russia,
Britain, and France--they're all in on it and they all know exactly what
they're doing. It's dirty. Again, when I was in Geneva with the Bosnian
Presidency at the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up, it was like a combination
of
Munich and Poland, and like watching the Jews go off to Auschwitz in
cattle-cars. Even the State Department predicted that if the
Owen-Stoltenburg Plan had been carried out, a million-and-a-half to two
million Bosnians would be subjected to ethnic cleansing. And, despite
this, the plan was still being pushed by Christopher. He and his
Ambassador were there pressuring President Izetbegovic to go along with
this carve-up. It was so bad that it led to three State Department
officials to quit in protest over a thoroughly duplicitous and
unprincipled policy that was being pursued by Christopher, and with the
full knowledge and approval of Clinton. Christopher then made some
statements about how if the Serbs continued to bombard Sarajevo and
other
Bosnian cities that there might be airstrikes. Now imagine this--there
we
were in Geneva trying to negotiate a peace plan, which for all intents
and
purposes was really a carve-up, and at the same time Serb artillery,
tanks
and anti-aircraft weapons were pouring fire down on Sarajevo, on Tuzla,
Zenica, Gorazde, and all the other Bosnian cities.
NATO airplanes were flying over Bosnia, watching all this going on,
taking
pictures and sending the reconnaissance photos back to NATO
headquarters,
to the UN and to Washington, London and Paris. Yet nothing is being
done.
And you can watch all this on CNN. Meanwhile, President Izetbegovic is
told 'by the way, you have to sign this document that will carve Bosnia
up
and rob Bosnia of its UN membership'. This is what's going on here.
During the so-called peace negotiations in Geneva, we sent a letter to
President Clinton asking for airstrikes against the Serb artillery,
tanks
and anti-aircraft weapons that were then raining death and destruction
upon the innocent people of Bosnia. Christopher had only threatened to
use
airstrikes, so I suggested that we send a letter to Clinton and
specifically ask for airstrikes.
So I drafted the letter which effectively asked 'how do you expect us to
negotiate here when we are being bombarded. If you want reasonable good
faith negotiations, then, at a minimum, we need airstrikes, we need some
counter-power here because the Serb leaders aren't interested in
negotiating with us'. I've been at peace negotiations--I was with the
Palestinians in Washington and that was pretty bad, but nothing like
this.
These were not negotiations, these were diktats. There is no way that it
can be anything but a diktat as long as the Bosnians cannot really do
more
to defend themselves than they currently are. And that's what the
international community has been doing so far. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan
was a diktat. The Vance-Owen Plan was a diktat. The Contact Group plan
was
a diktat--all imposed on the Bosnians against their wishes. President
Izetbegovic is not a Muslim fundamentalist who wants a mini-Muslim state
in Bosnia. He is a very cultured, educated, old-world gentleman who
would
very much like to see a true European state. And he is up there in
Geneva
with the other members of the Bosnian presidency fighting for a true
multi-cultural state. The irony for me is that the Bosnians are fighting
for human rights, international law and democracy. That's what the
Bosnians want--and the West, the US, Britain, Russia, and France are
saying, 'you can't have that--we're not giving it to you. All you have
is
a little apartheid mini-Muslim state. That's all we're going to give
you,
there you go'. That's the greatest irony of all.
Speaking to the people of Bosnia, predominantly, they blame two people
for
the crisis. One is Slobodan Milosevic, the other is Boutros
Boutros-Ghali.
The United Nations is an instrument, and in this sense, Boutros-Ghali is
correct in stating that the UN can only act according to its mandate. He
just does what the great powers tell him to do--this is not to excuse
the
UN at all--but the UN is doing exactly what the Russians, the British,
the
French and the Americans want them to do.
But what Boutros-Ghali must be criticised for is for being so spineless
and unprincipled for going along with the carve-up of Bosnia. And
remember, his grandfather was the one who signed the treaty handing over
Egypt to Britain, so Boutros-Ghali is in the pocket of the British and
the
Americans. They put him in that slot of Secretary-General against the
wishes of the Africans. They wanted a black candidate, but the
Americans
and the British wanted someone that they could control, and that
candidate
was Boutros-Ghali. The UN is complicit through and through but again, he
UN is just a tool and an instrument of the permanent members of the
Security Council They are the ones behind this.
In 1993 when Boutros-Ghali flew into Sarajevo he stated that he could
think of at least ten other regions in the world that had more urgent
needs and concerns than Sarajevo, and how Bosnia is basically a white
persons' war. For what purposes would he have made these statements
and,
indeed, are there other arenas around the world that are more
'deserving'
than Bosnia?
There are many areas of conflict in the world that we in the West
overlook. Bosnia was unique at that time because genocide was being
perpetrated. This is the first case in the history of the post-World War
II era where a formal determination of the existence of genocide was
produced, and of the trigger of the Genocide Convention obligation. I
won
that World Court ruling on April 8, 1992 and no-one did anything about
it
despite the existence within the UN Convention of the obligation to stop
genocide. Later on, of course, the same thing happened in Rwanda and
nothing was done there either--the UN did nothing, the United States did
nothing, and indeed the UN made it worse by pulling troops out and
allowing the genocide to happen again. What we are witnessing now is a
degradation of any international commitments to any principles at all.
That even when genocide stares the great powers in the face, they refuse
to do anything to stop it. Genocide evolved out of the consensus after
World War II that what happened to the Jewish people was atrocious and
should never happen again. Yet the same type of backsliding, denial,
abnegation of will power that we saw with the Jewish people is happening
with the Bosnians and now the Rwandans. I take it that what has happened
in Bosnia and Rwanda is a sign to any dictator in the world that it's
possible to commit mass murder and genocide and get away with
it--no-one's
really going to do anything to stop the action unless oil or capital
interest is involved. As Haris Silajdzic said in Geneva, 'if you kill
one
person you're prosecuted; if you kill ten people, you're a celebrity; if
you kill a quarter-of-a-million people, you're invited to a peace
conference'. That's the lesson of Bosnia, and that's exactly what has
happened with Karadzic.
So the agenda for the United Nations in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia
is not to intervene at any cost--a number of public statements by
General
Michael Rose and Yasushi Akashi deliberately confuse, contradict and
compromise the actions of the UN in Bosnia...
As a matter of fact, the UN has now withdrawn the air patrol over Bosnia
that was imposed on the same day that I won the first World Court order.
On that day it was announced that NATO was going to set up the air
patrol
over Bosnian air space. I was asked by the BBC what I thought about this
and I stated that I hoped that those air planes weren't just going to
fly
over Bosnia and watch the raping, the killing, the murdering and the
genocide that was going on, and just wave to the people without anything
about it. Yet that is exactly what has happened.
Again, it's not a question of inefficiency with the UN. They know what
they're doing and exactly why they're doing it. These people at the UN
are
not dumb, they are not inefficient, and they are not incompetent. What
is
being done in Bosnia is being done for a reason. To give you an example,
whenever it appeared that NATO might be instigating airstrikes under the
impetus of the Clinton administration, General Rose would send some of
his
own troops to be captured by the Serbs in order to abort the airstrikes.
Why were all the UN troops taken hostage in the last month after the
first
set of UN airstrikes--why weren't they protected?
That's exactly what the UN wanted--they wanted them taken hostage so
that
further military action would be prevented, and then precipitate an
excuse
for the UN to pull out of Bosnia. That's why those UN peace-keepers were
left at risk. And now, NATO has decided to pull back the patrol
"If you kill one person, you're prosecuted. If you kill ten
people, you're a celebrity; if you kill a quarter-of-a-million people,
you're invited to a peace conference."
Bosnian Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic, referring to the
invitation of Bosnian Serb representative Radovan Karadzic to the
Vance-Owen Peace Plan negotiations.
over Bosnian airspace. Now they are just patrolling on the Adriatic Sea.
When the attack by the Serb airplanes occurred in Bosnia, nothing was
done. Now NATO is pulling back what little ineffective military action
they were taking. Apparently senior UN General Bernard Janvier has
promised Karadzic that there will be no more NATO airstrikes and as a
symbol of this understanding, the UN pulled back and effectively
terminated the air patrol of Bosnia. And my guess is that the so-called
Rapid Reaction Corps is being sent over there to extricate the
UN--that's
why Owen quit. Owen has always been a tool of the British Foreign Office
and he has done exactly what his masters in London have wanted him to
do.
Now the great powers have decided that the time has come to pull out of
Bosnia and have told Owen to get out of there. So Owen is out. Unless
something remarkable happens between now and the end of this year, I
suspect that the British and the French will probably withdraw from
Bosnia.
The operations of the War Crimes Tribunal have been along the same lines
of ineptitude as the resolutions that have been passed through the
Security Council and the General Assembly. What exactly is the purpose
of
the War Crimes Tribunal and what are the problems that exist within its
legal framework?
I don't mean to criticise any of the judges involved and I'm sure that
they're men and women of good faith but essentially, the War Crimes
Tribunal is an exercise in public relations by the Security Council. The
CIA has made detailed reports, the State Department has made detailed
reports, they have their reconnaissance satellites and their
airplanes--they know all about the war crimes in Bosnia. But in an
effort
to try to deflect public pressure upon them, the Security Council
decided
to set up the so-called War Crimes Tribunal to make it appear as if
something is being done about the problem, whereas in fact what they are
doing is negotiating with the very people whom they know are responsible
for the war crimes. That's pretty much like negotiating with Hitler,
Himmler and Goring, during World War II. The assumption by the great
powers is that these are the reasonable people, they're the ones in
power,
so we have to broker some type of peace settlement with them because
they're the only ones that we can deal with.
The tribunal was pushed by the Clinton administration. Again, total
hypocrisy. Clinton took a very strong stand for Bosnia in the campaign.
Once he assumed power he just continued the Bush policies. But there's a
certain element of public relations. During the campaign he had to
appeal
to a certain constituency in the United States, the human rights lobby,
and for them Bosnia is an important issue. So Clinton has to run around
and make it appear as if something is really being done on Bosnia, and
the
installation of the tribunal gave this appearance. Again, I don't mean
to
criticise Justice Goldstone, I'm sure he's a well intentioned man. But
it's the question of the parameters. There's no money for the tribunal,
not much staff, there's not much investigation, so not much is going to
happen. It's just like what happened with the Bassiouni commission to
investigate war crimes. What happened? Sharif Bassiouni was put in
charge
of the commission to investigate war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.
The
UN gave him no money. He had to go out and find his own money. How can
there be an effective investigation without money? Then he puts a report
out that Boutros-Ghali buries in the ground. We haven't seen very much
of
that report. The UN buried the whole thing, on purpose.
Then the UN put Bassiouni out of business. Why? Because he was doing an
effective job even with all the financial obstacles. And of course, when
it was proposed that Bassiouni should be the chief prosecutor, the
British
objected because they couldn't control him--he might do an effective
job--he might do something silly like indict Milosevic. Bassiouni has
more
than enough evidence at the court on Milosevic--do you think that
they're
going to indict him when they're trying to negotiate with him? This will
not happen.
In Geneva during the peace negotiations, President Izetbegovic had to go
in and shake hands with Karadzic. I walked right past him--I wasn't
going
to shake his hand because he's a mass murderer and a criminal. And he
has
been given visas to come and negotiate in Geneva. And in New York. The
State Department let Karadzic come to New York to the Vance-Owen
carve-up
negotiations, with a US visa. The State Department was obliged under the
Geneva Convention to apprehend Karadzic. Eagleburger had already
identified him a suspected war criminal. The US had an absolute
obligation
to apprehend Karadzic if he showed up in New York, and to open an
investigation, and to prosecute--instead, they're giving him a visa and
secret service protection in New York. And the same happened in
Geneva--they're giving protection to war criminals. People who commit
genocide. That's who the great powers are dealing with. That's who
they're
negotiating with, and they know it. They know it full well. This is not
a
question of ineptitude and incompetence. Everyone knows exactly what
they're doing and why they are doing it.
So when Lawrence Eagleburger accused Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan
Karadzic of war crimes, and he is not the only one to make the
accusations--the accusations have been made many times by leading
political figures--is it another extension of the public relations and
propaganda machine at work?
Pretty much--to make it appear that if nothing is being done effectively
to stop the genocide, then at least there can be some condemnation
because
there is some public pressure here in the United States to do something.
At this time the first reports were coming out of the death camps by Roy
Gutman, the courageous reporter from Newsday. The US knew about these
death camps but they weren't saying anything about them, and they
weren't
going to do anything about them. Then Gutman broke the story and it went
out all over the world. Finally, amid the hemming and hawing the US said
'oh yes, we guess it is happening, we should condemn it'. The same thing
happen to the Jews which is what led to the Genocide Convention. The
theory was that if genocide ever happened again, that the world had an
absolute obligation to stop it. That's what the Genocide Convention is
all
about.
And yet here in the United States, even Clinton refused to admit that
genocide was going on in Bosnia. And that after I won the first World
Court order determining that genocide was going on in Bosnia and that
the
Serbs must cease and desist, not only in Belgrade but also in Pale. The
US
and the UN refused to admit that genocide was going on even when they
knew
all about it. They didn't want to admit to the obligation to stop it.
And
why? Again, as the great powers see it, these people are Muslim, they're
throw-away people. If these people were Christians or Jews or
whatever--different story. But since they're Muslims, who cares. It's
the
same attitude that the world took towards the Jews a generation ago. And
indeed that's pretty much how it looks with the Bosnians--it was a
repeat
of the attempt to save the Jews back in the 1930s, except this time the
Bosnians will go down fighting. Unlike everyone else who predicted that
they were going to throw in the towel, they're going to fight.
I remember President Izetbegovic saying that he will die in Sarajevo. So
if the Bosnians are going to go down, they're going to go down fighting.
And that's what the inconvenience is for the great powers, that these
little-bitty people are going to fight, they're not going to go quietly,
and they're not going to sign some 'peace' document that puts them out
of
business completely.
In current world political affairs, there is one consistent factor in
the
conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Gulf war--a
toleration by the West of atrocities committed against Muslim
populations.
An overriding agenda in the West is to actively deter Islamic
fundamentalism and create mass hysteria to surround any political domain
that comprises a 'Muslim' leadership.
Certainly if you look at it, that's what is happening, where the West
seems to be going to war with the Muslim world. Just look around. The
way
that the Palestinians are being treated by the Israelis is tantamount to
genocide--and indeed, I've offered to President Arafat to sue the
Israelis
at the World Court over this matter. Libya is being attacked and
destabilised because of oil and the fact that Colonel Gaddafi will not
take orders from the West.
Iran is under assault by the United States primarily at the beckoned
call
of the Israelis lobby the US. The entire Gulf is under the control of
the
United States. The US sits on top of all that oil--50 percent of the
world's oil supply. And the US is keeping Iraq in near genocidal
conditions--I've also offered to the Iraqi government to sue the
permanent
members of the Security Council to break the economic embargo that's
designed to destroy them. Chechnya again is a situation where more
Muslim
people are being wiped out. After the Russian invasion, I tried to get
some of the Islamic states to let me sue Russia to try to stop this, but
none of them were prepared to go after the Russians. So this is the
consistent pattern by the West of hostility toward the Islamic world,
and
it's only going to get worse not better. Bosnia is simply part of it in
the grander scheme of things.
And we've also heard Owen and others say 'we don't want a Muslim state
in
Europe'. This is a continuation of the historic process of expulsion of
Muslims from Europe going back to disintegration of the Ottoman empire
and
the subsequent mass transfers of people. This is the final cleansing and
wiping out of a major concentrated population of Muslims in Europe and
no-one really cares.
In 1991, the Gulf war contained its own version of geo-political
hypocrisy
for the purpose of Western capital interests. However, this period did
see
a level of consultancy and agreement amongst the great powers that
failed
to exist for decades, and was regarded as the pinnacle of the United
Nations' achievements. Four years after the Gulf war, the talk about the
end of the United Nations is being circulated. Will the friction that
exists between Muslim countries and Christian countries ultimately lead
to
the dissolution of the United Nations, in the same way that the League
of
Nations dissolved over 50 years ago?
Of course, the Gulf war was simply an attempt by the United States to
steal 50 percent of the world's oil resources using the UN as a pretext
and a cover to do so. The problem with many of the Muslim nations is
their
leadership. It's not the Muslim people, it's their cowardly leaders.
They
know exactly what's going on. They are not prepared to take the West on
behalf on any of these causes, they're divided, they're paralysed,
they're
corrupt, and they're bought off for the most part by the West. This
became
clear to me when I was in Geneva, meeting with some of the Ambassadors
from the Islamic Conference Organisation during the Owen-Stoltenburg
carve-up. I said to these Ambassadors 'gentlemen, your people will hold
your leaders accountable if the Bosnians are carved-up and destroyed'.
The
Deputy Head of the ICO smiled and shrugged his shoulders and said 'but,
what can we do?'. At that point it was clear to me that all the Muslim
rulers around the world know exactly what's happening but are not
prepared
to take on the West over Bosnia, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Chechnya, or
anywhere else. And they have had the options available to them. In 1973
they had an oil embargo and the leverage that went with it. In the
speeches that I've given in Malaysia and Turkey, I've stated to the
Muslim
nations that if they want to save the Bosnians, they should impose an
oil
embargo on the West. But they can't do it now because the situation has
changed. Because the US troops are now stationed in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait,
Oman, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar. These rulers are no longer free. So this is
the problem for the leadership. But for the people of the Muslim world,
Bosnia is a critical issue.
They see the total hypocrisy of the West on human rights and
international
law, and the United Nations Charter and see that their leaders are not
prepared to go to the matt on any of these issues. This is the typical
colonial divide and conquer strategy, just as the Romans did, just as
the
British did, and what the Americans are doing today.
What type of future do you see for the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
The Bosnians are going to keep fighting. As for where this will lead to,
I
really can't say, but as long as the Bosnians keep fighting, the pillars
of the post-World War II legal order are going to be shaken--the UN,
NATO,
and the World Court. With the total hypocrisy surrounding all of the
international principles, these institutions will continue to be
unmasked
and will continue to be undermined. That's what I see happening if the
current policies continue, but unfortunately it appears that this is
going
to be the case in the future. As for me, I am still prepared to return
to
the World Court and start suing the permanent members of the Security
Council and break that arms embargo for the Bosnians. This is the most
critical factor now as they need the heavy weapons to defend their
people.
This is their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is also their
obligation under the Genocide Convention. So I don't see the Bosnians
going away when they are prepared to fight and die for human rights and
democracy--that was my impression after talking with President
Izetbegovic--he is not going to throw in the towel. So the conflict in
Bosnia will continue and the longer it continues the more it is going to
shake the foundations of the post-World War II order.
What type of future is there for the United Nations?
None. As I see it, if this continues the way that it's going, then the
UN
means nothing, and it would be better to put it out of its misery, than
a
continuation of the current hypocrisy. By now, it should be clear to
everyone that the UN is nothing more than the agent, and the instrument
of
those four permanent members operating in the Security Council and that
it
really has no independent or outside existence. The UN is pretty
meaningless, so let's strip away the facade and the veneer and get down
to
the fiasco that's really happening here.
Could the United Nations become more meaningful and legally viable if
there was reform in the Security Council itself?
The Security Council should be put out of business and all the functions
for any maintenance of international peace and security should be
transferred to the General Assembly by two-thirds vote. In this sense,
there would be the capacity to have some sort of democratic control but
this suggestion is not on anyone's agenda.
The Security Council is like a star-chamber these days, where they no
longer even meet in public. All matters are now transacted in private.
It's just a little club of the most powerful members of the world to
order
around everyone else. That's what the Muslims saw in the Gulf. We are
seeing, in a historical perspective, the perversion--total
perversion--of
every known principle of international law, and the international
organisations and institutions that were set up after World War II. Now
that this is being turned on its head, and especially if the war in
Bosnia
continues, I really don't anticipate the current order staying.
We've reached a historical era now where the West as it is, Europe, and
the United States, has proven its moral bankruptcy--complete and total
moral bankruptcy, initially in Bosnia and then later on Rwanda. The West
has now forfeited any moral right to leadership that it might have had
in
terms of a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, and
the
rule of law, all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed
in
Bosnia.
The Bosnian crisis, whatever comes of it will be a turning point in the
way people now perceive the West, and of course, that perception is that
all the West is interested in its their own pocket books and controlling
the world with weapons--the West produces the best weapons in the world
and it has become obvious to the world that the West doesn't care about
principles. All the West cares about is oil, standards of living and
developing the weapons necessary to keep those standards of living.
That's
it. And that is becoming more and more clear to the Third World. How the
Third World will act on is unknown but I think that we are certainly at
a
major turning point in international relations.
5.2\bosnia.un.WPDot
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Ill. 61820
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
fboyle at law.uiuc.edu <mailto:fboyle at law.uiuc.edu>
________________________________________________________________________
______
__ __________ _ _______ ______
/ |/ / __/ _ | / |/ / __/ | /| / / __/
/ /|_/ /\ \/ __ |/ / _/ | |/ |/ /\ \
/_/ /_/___/_/ |_/_/|_/___/ |__/|__/___/
Views expressed on MSANEWS do not necessarily represent those of the
MSANEWS
editors, the Ohio State University or any of our associated staff and
"watchers". Further distribution of material featured on this list may
be
restricted. In all cases, please obtain the necessary permission of the
authors or rightful owners before forwarding any material to or from
this
list. This service is meant for the exchange of analyses and news, for
both
academic and activist usage. We depend on your input. However, this is
not a
discussion list. Thank you.
To subscribe, send e-mail to: <listserver at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
with the message body "subscribe MSANEWS Firstname Lastname".
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to the above address, with the message body
"unsubscribe MSANEWS".
MSANEWS Home Page: <http://msanews.mynet.net/>
Comments to the Editors: <msanews-ed at msanews.mynet.net>
Submissions for MSANEWS: <msanews at msanews.mynet.net>
Problems with subscription: <msaosu at postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
________________________________________________________________________
______
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list