Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: sjy
Dealing with Bosnia is a little bit like dealing with three serial killers -- one has killed 15, one has killed 10, one has killed five. Do we help the one that's only killed five? - Lewis Mackenzie, Congressional testimony, 1993.

The Commission is unable to determine the amount of harm and the exact number of violations committed by each of the warring factions. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a "moral equivalence" between the warring factions. - UN Commission of Experts Report on Bosnia, 1994

Sorry that Mackenzie's statement doesn't conform to your desire to avoid glib generalizations, but that's part of the problem, isn't it?

Let me tell you how this is going to play out:

I'm going to lay out the facts on the ground, and then you're going to deny them in the case of Bosnia.

Ergo, any discussion as to Mackenzie vs. Dallaire is moot, isn't it?

For example, after over a year of preparation, Serbia invaded Bosnia in 1992 and conducted a war of aggression against it's neighbor.

Do you agree with the above statement?

I doubt it, and nothing, to include the submission of reports of various Serbian paramilitaries or an entire JNA Corps travelling across the Drina will suffice, will it?

108 posted on 04/11/2004 3:00:52 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]

To: Hoplite
I'm going to lay out the facts on the ground, and then you're going to deny them in the case of Bosnia.

Ergo, any discussion as to Mackenzie vs. Dallaire is moot, isn't it?

I can't tell whether it's moot because you hinted at a comparison, even tempting us with the comment it was "interesting" but haven't actually made the comparison yet nor supported it with specifics, which I asked you nicely to do. Please tell me about about Dallaire. A comparison isn't a comparison unless you're comparing 2 things.

We can quote lots of experts on the facts on the ground in Bosnia, can't we? Like the notoriously Serbophile and pro-Milosevic U.S. Information Agency, whose research disclosed that Serbs report the most lost family members of any group in Bosnia during the Bosnian war (not to mention the question of lost land - RS comprises 49% of Bosnia's territory, while Serbs formed a demographic plurality on +/-70% of pre-war Bosnia). Then there's the expert Charles Boyd, the former Deputy Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command, from November 1992 to July 1995, who wrote,

Much of what Zagreb calls the occupied territories is in fact land held by Serbs for more than three centuries, ever since imperial Austria moved Serbs to the frontier (the Krajina) to protect the shopkeepers of Vienna (and Zageb) from the Ottomans. The same is true of most Serb land in Bosnia, what the Western media frequently refers to as the 70 percent of was Bosnia seized by rebel Serbs. There were only 500,000 fewer Serbs than Muslims in Bosnia at independence, with the more rural Serbs tending toward larger landholdings. In short, the Serbs are not trying to conquer new territory, but merely to hold on to what was already theirs.

(Foreign Affairs, 1995)

Then there's the experts at the U.S. State Dept., who determined that Serb fatalities and losses in the Bosnian civil war were proportionate to their presence in the pre-war population, and that by the spring of '95, before the massive co-ordinated offensives against BSA-held areas by the Bosnian Army and Nato, total fatalities in the Bosnian war were in the vicinity of 50-60k. And there's the expert report to the Security Council in 1992, which confirmed that the Yugoslav army had withdrawn from Bosnia within the time limit mandated by the SC, and which was suppressed with U.S. connivance, leading to draconian sanctions on Yugoslavia, while "independent" Croatia's army remained on Bosnia's territory illegally, with no sanctions imposed on Croatia. So we just have a plethora of "experts" we can draw upon here can't we?

MacKenzie's consistent account of a civil war in which no side were angels and in which press reporting became parti pris for one side and fact-free stands up very well over time and accords with lots of *experts* actually. Which brings me again to Dallaire. Please answer my question. How does Dallaire's service to the facts come out better? Fyi, here's a report, with transcription, of his cross-exam at the ICTR. NB how he doesn't "defy" the facts or try to invoke "historical animosities", or anything:

Rwandan colonel's lawyer attacks Dallaire's credibility Last Updated Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:19:34 ARUSHA, TANZANIA - Defence lawyers at a United Nations tribunal tried to undermine Roméo Dallaire's testimony Wednesday, attacking his memory of events leading up to the massacre in Rwanda 10 years ago and questioning his fairness when he headed the UN mission in the country.

Rafael Constant

The retired Canadian general has been testifying against Theoneste Bagosora and three other former Rwandan army officials who are accused of instigating the 100-day genocide that left more than half a million Rwandans dead.

Lawyer Rafael Constant, who represents Bagosora, spent hours Wednesday trying to demonstrate that Dallaire had a clear prejudice against the mostly Hutu government that has been blamed for killing Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

He implied that Dallaire had omitted important facts in his book, Shake Hands With The Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda.

"The book is the result of heated debates with my editor," replied Dallaire. "Not everything I know is in the book. It is a compromise."

Constant also questioned Dallaire's accuracy.

Dallaire insisted he had seen Bagosora at a meeting in late August 1993. Constant produced Bagosora's passport, proving he was out of the country at the time, attending a meeting of regional defence officials in Gabon.

Roméo Dallaire

"You have planted a seed of doubt in my mind," said Dallaire. "I can't answer anything else."

Wednesday's session in Tanzania had a distinctly Canadian feel to it.

Dallaire took the stand for cross-examination surrounded by a team of Canadian bodyguards because of death threats against him.

When his book about the genocide was quoted, long minutes were lost trying to reconcile the English and French versions.

And Dallaire himself couldn't seem to decide whether to answer questions in English or French.

"Just go on, general, in whatever language you want," one of the judges finally said.

Dallaire also told the tribunal that the central African country's presidential guard started the massacres after the Rwandan president's jet was shot down over Kigali on April 6, 1994.

In addition, he testified that he resisted having Belgian troops on the UN Assistance Mission because Rwanda was once a Belgian colony. M

CBC, Jan. 21, 2004

110 posted on 04/11/2004 4:58:27 PM PDT by sjy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson