On U.S. policy
On U.S. policy
Although the proposals for Bosnia by James Baker III (The
Jakarta Post, July 26, 1995) mirror my earlier "ideas" in a
previous letter, there are some glaring inconsistencies which beg
comment.
* "The USA cannot be the policeman of the world," should have
added "unless our strategic interests (oil) are threatened" he
says as much himself, later on in the article. "Are our interests
in....sufficiently vital to involve the introduction of U.S.
ground forces--the answer is no." I would ask Mr. Baker (who was
certainly no heavyweight whilst in "power") why not withdraw
altogether from the UN, which the U.S. effectively controls, as
the function is generally understood internationally, to be just
that of "world policeman". He goes on to say that the U.S. has a
vital interest in "containing the Bosnian conflict", in other
words, policing it.
* "It risks a conflagration that could draw in....Bulgaria,
Greece and even Turkey." What arrant nonsense. This conflict is a
centuries-old ethnic feud about territorial ambitions within the
former Yugoslavia. It didn't just appear in 1992, but has reached
the present proportions because of "hand wringing and finger
pointing" by the West (Mr. Baker's words), and the ineffective,
confusing "leadership" of the UN by Boutros-Ghali. The vital and
commendable function of the UN anywhere, is that of policing an
already negotiated peace between warring factions. It is clearly
no part of their brief to separate warring factions and, of
whatever nationality, lose their lives in the process.
* "Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, or genocide in Ruanda." Why
does he shy from using the term genocide in respect of Bosnia?
Later on he says "feeble western response has prompted comparison
with the appeasement of Adolf Hitler." Wrong. It has prompted
comparison with the genocide of the Nazi regime.
* "European leadership has failed." Correct, but it has failed
because of the totally dominant hold of the U.S. on any European
policy or planned action. This neatly comes back to my original
point -- European conflict, European shame, European
responsibility -- not American. The American people are right to
be skeptical of the "flirtation" with involvement in the far
flung theaters of war, and we, Europeans, share that skepticism
with our "leaders" -- why?, because we know, from experience,
that indecision and consensus government puts the lives of our
armed forces at great risk. However, we do generally support our
elected leaders in a just cause, and what is more just than
stopping further genocide.
Take heed of Mr. Baker's closing words: "only a substantial
containment strategy, (resolutely led by the U.S.), and an
overwhelming NATO force can stop the war." But, with the greatest
respect to our American friends and allies (and long may they
continue to be so), in this special European conflict, we need a
NATO without U.S. influence in any way, shape or form, then we
will succeed and then we (Europeans) can finally prove to the
Moslem nations that, although the problems and difficulties were
enormous, we did care, we did act, we did accept responsibility.
BILL GUERIN
Jakarta