By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources, (www.originalsources.com)
May 11, 1999
A political science assistant professor in the Political Science department of a college in Minnesota challenged me on several points about yesterday's column, entitled "China Rejects Clinton Administration's "Stupidity Defense" in Bombing of Chinese Embassy." (http://originalsources.com/OS5-99MQC/5-10-1999.1.shtml) I learned, from reading the e-mail, that while China may have rejected Clinton's "Stupidity Defense" for the bombing of the Belgrade Chinese Embassy, we have at least one pro-Clinton, anti-Serb professor teaching America's youth who believes that the "Stupidity Defense" is perfectly acceptable.
The professor challenged me on several points, which I believe he deserves an answer to.
I wrote:
So, it seems, Clinton's version of "humanitarianism" - bombing Yugoslavia back to the stone age is viewed in Beijing in a totally different light. While Clinton talks about the "world" approving his unprovoked attack on Yugoslavia as a "humanitarian" move, the rest of the world is apparently not ready yet to accept Clinton-speak definitions. They, logically, believe that, if NATO destroys the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia over its differences of opinion with a minority within its borders, it could destroy, or try to destroy, China over its differences of opinion with its minority within its borders - Tibet.
The professor objected to: **Ethnic cleansing involving murder, forced relocation, and looting as "differences of opinion."
The charge of "ethnic cleansing" is a relatively new term, which the Clinton administration tried to equate with "genocide" when the bombing started on March 24th. What exactly IS genocide and what is "ethnic cleansing?" They actually do have definitions.
Daryl G. Press, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes that genocide has a very specific meaning: "the systematic annihilation of a racial, political or cultural group." Is that what the Serbs are doing? Hardly. In fact, we can see by the TV clips that the Albanian refugees are arriving at the border well-dressed, not even looking tired for the most part. How come? Because, even though NATO has destroyed most if not all the gasoline storage and refineries, the Albanian refugees are arriving at the border, or near the border, in trucks, on tractors, in trains - and walking a few hundred yards or up to five miles. The Serbs are even allowing the Albanians access to precious gasoline for their escape from the war around them.
Since the break-up of Yugoslavia, there has been a massive movement of people as first one, and then another, of the nationalities which made up the former Yugoslavia demanded independence and a country composed of people of their own ethnicity. For example, in 1991 Croatia's ethnic mix in a population of 3,335,000 was 75% Croatian and 18% Serb. By 1997, the ethnic mix in Croatia was 78% Croatian and only 12% Serb - because the Serbs had been driven out of the Krajina area of Croatia, or killed, in 1995 by the Tudjman regime.
Charles Kreuthammer wrote in a Washington Post, Editorial, August 15, 1995: "This week in four days of blitzkrieg by the Croatian army, 160 000 Serbs living in the Krajina region of Croatia were ethnically cleansed, sent running for their lives to Bosnia and Serbia... Why no anguish over the fall of Krajina, a region the Serbs have inhabited for 500 years longer than we have inhabited North America?"
Why, indeed? After four years, the Serbs of Croatia still have not been allowed back to reclaim their homes in Krajina, while Bill Clinton declares that he will continue to bomb the Serbs until "All the Albanians are returned to their homes in Kosovo."
However, there is a very big difference between the Albanians of Kosovo and the Serbs of Krajina. At least one-third of the Albanians in Kosovo are illegal aliens who have come into Kosovo since the Communist government and economy of Albania collapsed in 1992. Albania has the highest birthrate in Europe, and a natural increase over deaths of almost 2% a year. In 1991, the population of Albania was 3,335,000. With a 2% per year increase, the population by 1997 should have been 4,161,710 inhabitants, an increase of over 868,400 people.
Editor's Note: Any honest liberal could make an excellent case for the need for birth control among the Albanians. They are almost a textbook case of overpopulating a nation - especially since they often cling to traditional, agricultural lifestyles. It's typical liberal hypocrisy that no mention has been made of the problems caused by the Albanians need for more and more land due to their population explosion - quite the opposite of "genocide," by the way.
If we substract the approximately 166,000 Greeks which the Albanians ethnically cleansed out of Albania two years ago, the current population of Albania should be approximately 4 million people in 1997. According to the World Almanac, the 1997 population of Albania was only 3,293,252, a DECREASE of 41,748 people.
Where are the missing 750,000 Albanians, do you suppose? Before the NATO bombing started, according to the U.S. State Department, the population of Kosovo was approximately 2 million, with 1,800,000 Albanians and 200,000 Serbs. In 1961, Kosovo had a total population of 963,565, with an ethnic Albania population of 642,000. The 1993 World Almanac showed that the ethnic Albania population of Yugoslavia's four provinces, Serbia, Montegegro, Kosov and Vovvodina, totaled 826,960 IN ALL FOUR PROVINCES.
On March 24th, according to the State Department, there were one million more Albanians IN KOSOVO ALONE than had been in all of Yugoslavia in 1992. If there are 1,800,000 Albanians in Kosovo, as claimed, somewhere between 500,000 and 700,000 of them are illegal aliens who came into Kosovo in the last 5-7 years.
I wrote in yesterday's column:
The Chinese and the Russians are not buying the American notion that Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in order to keep the American voters from dwelling on his acceptance of Chinese money for his 1996 election. They believe it has deep geo-political meaning and clearly shows that the United States is getting ready to move into a sinister, and dangerous new-imperialism mode.
The professor asked:
**Why is NATO destroying all the assets of their intended conquest?
First, NATO is not "destroying all the assets" of Yugoslavia. As a land, Yugoslavia has Large coal deposits and water potential, which have made possible the construction of modern thermoelectric and hydroelectric power plants which easily meet the domestic requirements and generate surplus for export. There is domestic oil and gas which, while insufficient for total independence, still is considered great, plus an abundance of metallic and non-metallic ore mines which supply the iron and steel industry and non-ferrous metallurgy plants and manufacturers of metal and non metallic mineral products.
The Chinese are thinking in terms of strategic advantage - not necessarily the capture and use of assets. Yugoslavia is bordered by seven nations - and is a gateway to both Russia and Asia Minor.
I wrote:
At this point, there are no good options for the United States. Senator John McCain's determined effort to win an unrighteous war at all costs, lest the world no longer fear American power may be militaristically correct - but apparently could mean World War III with China and Russia on one side and the USA and Britain on the other.
The professor responded:
**China and Russia are not going to go (to war) with NATO over Kosovo.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. They may very well think it an excellent time to invade Taiwan, however, once we have depleted our missile supply - not over Kosovo, but over American planes bombing one of their embassies, we may very well be in a vulnerable position.
Remember a very few months ago when we bombed two nations because, we decided, they had some kind of vague connection with our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania being bombed? There is no doubt at all who bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. If it is acceptable for us to bomb the Sudan and Afghanistan because we think they may have been too friendly with those accused of bombing US embassies, we have set the precedent for China to bomb the United States in retaliation to our bombing their embassy. Hopefully, they won't follow our lead in the matter.
I wrote:
Perhaps it is time we think about making decisions based on what is RIGHT, rather than what is merely expedient and militaristically advantageous.
The professor asked: **How is the NATO bombing campaign "expedient and militaristically advantageous" for the United States?
Well, that's for military types like Sen. John McCain to explain. He seems to believe that we HAVE to win this unrighteous, illegal war lest Yugoslavia and other nations conclude that we are a military paper tiger that can be summarily dismissed. Having lost our leadership in the world based on moral authority and the principles we once espoused of liberty for all, we have nothing left but to try to scare the world into fearing our military power.
I wrote:
But who in America's government has what it takes to make a morally right decision? Certainly not Bill Clinton, and probably not the US Senate, based on their vote to keep him in office, rather than to convict him for his moral corruption and lying.
The professor observed: **As always, every issue is viewed as an opportunity to attack Bill Clinton.
The last time I checked, Bill Clinton WAS still the President of the United States and he WAS the commander-in-chief giving the orders to bomb - without the authority of the United States Congress or even of the United Nations. This is Bill Clinton's war - and there is no way to avoid that. While you didn't mention them, the Congress also was "attacked" in my comment - if that is the correct word for my observation.
The Professor argued:
By the way, my research seems to indicate that you were completely wrong with respect to the autonomy issue. The Yugoslavian government took virtually every right away from the Albanians, including the right to self-government. I have a Kosovar Albanian student in one of my classes who was forced to attend a "black" school because the government would not allow him to attend the local public school. The police routinely raided the school, harassing the volunteer teachers and students.
And just where, professor, did you do your "research?" At your student's desk? Elsewhere on this website there is a copy of the 1990 Yugoslavia Constitution, which is the document you refer to when you complain about the "autonomy" issue. Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic did not revoke Kosovo's autonomy. The Serbian constitution of 1990 reduces that autonomy to what it was in 1963, which is still considerable. The 1974 Yugoslav constitution had created an anomaly by, in effect, making Kosovo a separate republic inside the republic of Serbia. This fact was recognized in 1988 by all of the Yugoslav republics when they joined to amend that constitution, giving Serbia the right to amend its constitution with respect to its autonomous provinces. Incidentally, the communist leaders in Kosovo and the other autonomous province, Vojvodina, also gave their consent.
- The Western European powers and the United States have said that Kosovo is part of Serbia (i.e., Yugoslavia), but that it should have adequate autonomy. Most observers agree that its autonomy should be equivalent to that accorded to minorities in other European states. The new Constitution protects all minorities in Yugoslavia by giving them equal rights. Ethnic minorities that want control over other ethnic minorities, of course, object to that kind of equality.
At Rambouillet, Milosevic's negotiators, who were denied any opportunity to have their proposals heard, proposed a plan which allowed the ethnic Albanians the right to the kind of autonomy which allowed them to preserve their own language, schools, customs and traditions. It did not allow them to interfere with the language, schools, customs and traditions of other ethnic groups. This was not satisfactory to the Albanian rebels - who demanded, and were promised by Madeline Albright, a vote which would allow them to take Kosovo out of the boundaries of Yugoslavia.
In America, when the same issue came up, Abraham Lincoln took the position that the rebel states of the South did not have the right to secede from the Union. Southern leaders believed they did have that right - and America fought a Civil War over the issue - quite similar to the civil war now being fought in Yugoslavia.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
If you like Mary's daily column, you'll LOVE her monthly in-depth column and issue research in the REAGAN MONITOR monthly newsletter. Start your subscription with the April edition which explores the Y2K Problem in Russia, with a guest article by a Russian computer expert. Also, what are the qualities needed in the next President and WHICH OF THE ANNOUNCED CANDIDATES BEST FITS THE JOB DESCRIPTION! The print version is $34.95 and e-mail edition is $16.95. Click Here to Order Online. Or call toll free: 877-821-6244.