http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/369281.htm
OPINION
Lessons From Bosnia
29 July 2008
By Fyodor Lukyanov
The arrest of Radovan Karadzic, who bears a significant portion of
responsibility for the horrors of the civil war in Bosnia, is an
appropriate ending to his political career. There are no grounds to
portray the former president of Bosnian Serb republic as a victim of
circumstances; he is getting what he deserves. But the event itself
leads to painful reflections about what has happened up to now in the
global arena.
Carl Bildt wrote in "Peace Journey: The Struggle for Peace in Bosnia,"
published in 1997, about his own participation in the Bosnian
settlement and his opposition to dividing up Bosnia along ethnic
lines. Bildt claimed that the politics of ethnic division in Bosnia
would have immediately had consequences for the region and Europe as a
whole, namely attempts at new partitions and ethnic cleansings. The
author explained that blood began to pour forth in the Balkans when
the poison of nationalism with its demands for divisions and ethnic
cleansing penetrated into a locality that was inherently a cultural
mosaic.
Several years later, these lessons were either forgotten or
consciously ignored. In the case of Kosovo, leading Western powers
decided to be governed by a reverse logic: that joint cohabitation of
Serbs and Albanians makes no sense. It's simpler to fulfill Kosovars'
aspirations for self-determination, even if it contravenes existing
law.
The great global powers officially acknowledged their inability to
create a "civil" nation based on the rule of law and tolerance.
Instead, the primitive principles of blood ties, raw power and the
suppression of one group and support of another predominated.
During the nightmare of the Bosnian war at the end of the 20th
century, Europe helplessly watched as medieval barbarity raged in its
own backyard. It also demonstrated the inability of the European Union
and NATO to undertake coordinated actions and rise to new challenges.
Bildt wrote about this very issue, and he called on the Europeans to
develop a single foreign policy and security policy. He also appealed
to NATO to transform itself into a politically flexible organization.
But things turned out differently. The EU did not move toward
political consolidation. On the contrary, now almost any serious
international decision leads to a split among member countries. NATO
learned a moral lesson from the Bosnian tragedy, but this did not help
the organization become more effective. Instead, NATO simply relied on
its military power, which was demonstrated in the Yugoslav bombing
campaign of 1999.
The fear of a new wave of slaughter in Europe pushed the West toward
the illegal use of force. And one illegal action led to others. If
humanitarian motives were present in the case of Yugoslavia, the Iraq
campaign from the outset was built on lies and manipulations. As a
result, liberal interventionism became morally bankrupt. The
borderline between the use of force for good and for selfish interests
turned out to be very fine. It has been a long time since the lofty
concepts of freedom and democracy were abused and twisted in such a
cynical way.
During the Bosnian war, European and U.S. politicians were justifiably
criticized for their inability to halt the bloodletting. But to be
fair, the intense diplomatic efforts did not stop for a single day,
and the leading powers made every attempt to put a stop to the
military actions and find a political solution.
In comparison with that period, today's politicians seem lazy,
disinterested and arrogant. For example, not one of the outside powers
that were active in the prolonged talks on the status of Kosovo
demonstrated any creative approach, nor an honest attempt to find a
solution.
In addition, the United Nations war crimes tribunal was established
during the Bosnian war to punish officials for their role in carrying
out the most serious war crimes. Fifteen years later, the high-minded
idea of "supranational" retribution for atrocities has been tarnished.
The tribunal did not succeed in punishing the main guilty parties (if
we don't consider the death of former Serbian President Slobodan
Milosevic in his cell as a judicial verdict), but the trial of low-
and mid-level Serbian participants in the conflict smacks of political
bias against the Serbs. This bias undermined the faith in the very
principle of supranational justice.
The 1990s brought a surge of hopes, new ideas and notions about a more
just world order. These attempts were not successful -- or you could
even argue they led to the opposite result. Today's egoism in
international affairs is in many ways the consequence of false
expectations of the recent past.
Karadzic must undoubtedly answer for his actions. But what about the
other guilty parties, including those who today are convinced of their
right to judge others?
Fyodor Lukyanov is editor of Russia in Global Affairs.
__._,_.___
Serbian News Network - SNN
[email protected]
http://www.antic.org/
