On U.S. policy<\/p>\n
Although the proposals for Bosnia by James Baker III (The
\nJakarta Post, July 26, 1995) mirror my earlier \"ideas\" in a
\nprevious letter, there are some glaring inconsistencies which beg
\ncomment.<\/p>\n
* \"The USA cannot be the policeman of the world,\" should have
\nadded \"unless our strategic interests (oil) are threatened\" he
\nsays as much himself, later on in the article. \"Are our interests
\nin....sufficiently vital to involve the introduction of U.S.
\nground forces--the answer is no.\" I would ask Mr. Baker (who was
\ncertainly no heavyweight whilst in \"power\") why not withdraw
\naltogether from the UN, which the U.S. effectively controls, as
\nthe function is generally understood internationally, to be just
\nthat of \"world policeman\". He goes on to say that the U.S. has a
\nvital interest in \"containing the Bosnian conflict\", in other
\nwords, policing it.<\/p>\n
* \"It risks a conflagration that could draw in....Bulgaria,
\nGreece and even Turkey.\" What arrant nonsense. This conflict is a
\ncenturies-old ethnic feud about territorial ambitions within the
\nformer Yugoslavia. It didn't just appear in 1992, but has reached
\nthe present proportions because of \"hand wringing and finger
\npointing\" by the West (Mr. Baker's words), and the ineffective,
\nconfusing \"leadership\" of the UN by Boutros-Ghali. The vital and
\ncommendable function of the UN anywhere, is that of policing an
\nalready negotiated peace between warring factions. It is clearly
\nno part of their brief to separate warring factions and, of
\nwhatever nationality, lose their lives in the process.<\/p>\n
* \"Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, or genocide in Ruanda.\" Why
\ndoes he shy from using the term genocide in respect of Bosnia?
\nLater on he says \"feeble western response has prompted comparison
\nwith the appeasement of Adolf Hitler.\" Wrong. It has prompted
\ncomparison with the genocide of the Nazi regime.<\/p>\n
* \"European leadership has failed.\" Correct, but it has failed
\nbecause of the totally dominant hold of the U.S. on any European
\npolicy or planned action. This neatly comes back to my original
\npoint -- European conflict, European shame, European
\nresponsibility -- not American. The American people are right to
\nbe skeptical of the \"flirtation\" with involvement in the far
\nflung theaters of war, and we, Europeans, share that skepticism
\nwith our \"leaders\" -- why?, because we know, from experience,
\nthat indecision and consensus government puts the lives of our
\narmed forces at great risk. However, we do generally support our
\nelected leaders in a just cause, and what is more just than
\nstopping further genocide.<\/p>\n
Take heed of Mr. Baker's closing words: \"only a substantial
\ncontainment strategy, (resolutely led by the U.S.), and an
\noverwhelming NATO force can stop the war.\" But, with the greatest
\nrespect to our American friends and allies (and long may they
\ncontinue to be so), in this special European conflict, we need a
\nNATO without U.S. influence in any way, shape or form, then we
\nwill succeed and then we (Europeans) can finally prove to the
\nMoslem nations that, although the problems and difficulties were
\nenormous, we did care, we did act, we did accept responsibility.<\/p>\n
BILL GUERIN<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/on-us-policy-1447899208", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }