Bombing of Yugoslavia -10th Anniversary

[audiotech]

there was some rumour that BNP members were fighting for serbian forces, but this could be a myth!

I know of one then NF member, who went to fight on the side of Croatian fascist forces. He had a foot blown off for his troubles standing on a mine.

 

[frogwoman]

Heh.

 

[Nigel]

I know of one then NF member, who went to fight on the side of Croatian fascist forces. He had a foot blown off for his troubles standing on a mine.

Is this urban myth or have you got this from a reliable source?

 

[Idris2002]

Quite honestly, like Ireland and the UK, this is one of those issues when NATO et al should've just stayed well out of and allowed it to become a humanitarian disaster the same way we tend to with Africa.

Altho then of course, everyone on this thread would be beating their breasts with 'No one did anything to prevent it!!!'

The Dublin government floated a plan for UN intervention in Northern Ireland in 1969. London pointed out to Washington that this might well end in African blue helmets being sent into the streets of Alabama or Watts, which scuppered that plan.

Oh, and don't forget that there was an intervention in Rwanda - France's Operation Turquoise, which helped the genocidaires escape over the border to Zaire. And Tutsi survivors of the massacre at Bisero, Rwanda, continue to claim that French paratroopers enticed them to come out of hiding, only for the paras to scuttle off shortly afterwards, leaving the Tutsi to the tender mercies of the machete wielders.

 

[Idris2002]

Is this urban myth or have you got this from a reliable source?

It *ought* to be true.

 

[BlackArab]

I know of one then NF member, who went to fight on the side of Croatian fascist forces. He had a foot blown off for his troubles standing on a mine.

Forgive me for not ploughing through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been posted already, but on the subject of foreign volunteers this makes interesting reading

http://www.cfiva.org/cfiva/home/index.cfm

 

[audiotech]

Is this urban myth or have you got this from a reliable source?

A very reliable source.

 

[Nigel]

A very reliable source.

Searchlight?
I'm not necessarily disputing this, the far right seemed to be sympathetic towards the Croats at the beginning then warmed towards Pan Slavic Serbian empathy and support!

 

[audiotech]

Searchlight?

No, I know of him personally.

PM sent.

 

[frogwoman]

Searchlight?
I'm not necessarily disputing this, the far right seemed to be sympathetic towards the Croats at the beginning then warmed towards Pan Slavic Serbian empathy and support!

Sure they did.

 

[Cadmus]

Btw, Serbs didnt start the wars. As Croatia declared independence, Serbian population within Croatia (300,000) wanted to separate from Croatia. But at that time Croatian president Tudjman changed the status of Serbs to a minority. Minorities don't have a right to referendum, so he really killed off the only peaceful option. This caused the Serbian uprising and progressed into a war.... 5 years later 300,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia.

There was nothing illegal in definining the Serbs in Croatia as a minority. The decision was in line with international law. According to the Badinter arbitration commission, Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia did not have a right to self-determination as that right was already consumed by their nation-state, Serbia.

On 20 November 1991 Lord Carrington asked: "Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?" The commission concluded on 11 January 1992 that "that the Serbian population in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia is entitled to all the rights concerned to minorities and ethnic groups[...]" and "that the Republics must afford the members of those minorities and ethnic groups all the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in international law, including, where appropriate, the right to choose their nationality".

Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia refused this view and went on to form states within states through comission of crimes, with intent to join them to a Serb dominated state in the future. A plethora of judgements from international courts have established this based on documentary and live evidence. On the other hand, there is no verdict on whether the departure of some 100,000 Serbs from Croatia constitutes ethnic cleansing yet and if you've already got the judgement of the still ongoing proceedings in The Hague, let us know.

The question of who started the war is anyway largely irrelevant to the concept of humanitarian intervention, which is how the bombing of Yugoslavia (ie Serbia and Montenegro) was viewed. What I always found interesting was how the International Court of Justice hypocritically refused to accept under jurisdiction Serbia's cases against NATO countries with the argument that Serbia was not a member of the UN at the time and had no access to the UN court. However, in a later judgement, when Serbia was being sued by Bosnia, it ruled that Serbia was a member of the UN and accepted jurisdiction.

This indicates that Serbia probably had a good case on the illegal use of force against the attacking NATO members which the UN could just not bare so the case was dismissed based on jurisdiction, without having to go into the merits which could have been very embarassing for NATO.

 

[frogwoman]

interesting post cadmus. I really dislike the concept of humanitarian intervention tbh, which isn't to say that i don't tihnk we should intervene when there's genocide, but military stuff always makes that sort of stuff worse and it's usually the countries with the poorest record on invading other countries and violating human rights that end up doing it.

i think efforts by neighbouring countries can make a lot of difference though.

 

[Nigel]

No, I know of him personally.

PM sent.

Cheers!