Will the election of Republican George W. Bush as President usher in changes in foreign policy with regard to Serbia, Yugoslavia, and the Balkans? Will there be a continuation of „humanitarian interventionism“, „military humanism“, „economic globalism“ and „globalization“?
The Bush Administration foreign policy team has rejected the selective humanitarian interventionism of the Bill Clinton/Al Gore Administration, as espoused by Madeleine Albright and James Rubin. John Hulsman, Balkans adviser to Bush, announced that Bush was concerned about „imperial overstretch“ and has rejected a foreign policy that uses the US military in „nation building“. Hulsman has announced a „philosophical sea change“ in Balkans foreign policy? But is that assertion valid? Who will make up the new foreign policy team in the Bush Administration?
President-elect George W. Bush has announced his foreign policy team: Colin Powell will be Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld will be Secretary of Defense, and Condoleezza Rice will be the National Security adviser in the new cabinet. Along with Vice-President-elect Dick Cheney, they are Republican conservative veterans of the Cold War foreign policy paradigm. They are all experienced in Cold War diplomacy, all are hard-nosed Cold Warriors. Donald Rumsfeld joined the Richard Nixon Administration in 1969 and was Secretary of Defense in the Gerald Ford Administration in 1975. Colin Powell was Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman in the George Bush Administration. Rice was a senior adviser on Soviet affairs and Eastern Europe during the same Administration.
Like Cheney, Rumsfeld was part of the Gerald Ford Adminstration. Rumsfeld was Ford’s chief of staff. He became a Congressman in 1962, resigning in 1969 to join the Richard Nixon Administration during the Vietnam War. He was ambassador to NATO, headed the poverty program, and was part of a Commission in 1998 that warned of a missile threat to the US by „rogue“ states. He strongly supports the missile defense program, the revamped „Star Wars missile shield“ from the Ronald Reagan era. Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin of the Senate Armed Services Committee called his nomination a strong choice. Republican John Warner of Virginia stated that it was “fortunate that this experienced, tested, tough-minded old hand had returned.
Rice will be the chief foreign policy adviser to Bush. She has a political science background and was a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. After 1986, she worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, D.C. on nuclear strategic planning as part of the Council for Foreign Relations. In 1989, she was the director of Soviet and Eastern European affairs within the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. She was senior director for Soviet affairs. She is thus a political scientist and a Soviet „specialist“. She is also a corporate board member of the Chevron Corporation, the Hewlett Foundation, Charles Schwab, and is on a council for J.P. Morgan. She is an experienced hand from the Bush Administration of 1989-1993 so she is merely making a return, like Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld. We are seeing the return of many old faces.
The Bush Administration is committed to withdrawing all US ground troops from the Balkans in four years. John Hulsman, the Balkans adviser to Bush, announced this change in US foreign policy as follows:
“There will be a philosophical sea change when Bush is in the White House. After four years there will be no American ground troops in the Balkans.”
There are currently 10,000 US ground troops in the Balkans. As part of the Kosovo KFOR contingent, there are 5,500 US troops at Bondsteel in eastern Kosovo. As part of SFOR in Bosnia at the Tuzla base there are 4,500 US troops. The Bush Administration has plans to change Sfor, Stabilization force, to DFOR, Deterrence force, with a reduction in troop strength. Richard Perle, a foreign policy adviser to Bush, supports „a drawing down“ of US troops. The Bush foreign policy team thus rejects humanitarian interventionism as developed by Madeleine Albright and rejects using the US military in nation building and peace-keeping projects. Colin Powell has long voiced the view that the US military should not be used for peace-keeping and nation building. The US should only use massive force to achieve clearly defined military objectives, the so-called Powell Doctrine. Powell, a veteran of the Vietnam War, seeks to avoid Vietnam-style quagmires. Instead, the Bush team wants to base foreign policy strictly on national interest. What do these changes in foreign policy entail?
The George W. Bush Administration is by all appearances merely a continuation of the George Bush Administration of 1989-1993, which itself was merely a continuation of the Ronald Reagan Administration of 1981-1989. This was the Administration that intervened in Panama and launched the Persian Gulf War. Many of the foreign policy staff of that period will be returning to the new administration, including Powell, Rice, and Perle. The new administration looks a lot like the old administration. Is it the Old World Order or is it the New World Order or the New Old World Order? There is a return to the past rather than a turn to the future. Indeed, the anachronistic Star Wars missile defense shield of the Reagan Administration is returning under the sponsorship of Rumsfeld. Is the US really in danger of missile attack from „rogue states“? Moreover, the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty with the Soviet Union would be violated if the US created a „Missile Shield“. This new/old Star Wars Program endangers relations with Russia. Will there be a new arms race? Will we see a return of the Cold War? Everything old is new again. There is an atmosphere of déjà vu. But what changes does this return entail for the Balkans?
It was George Bush who announced that he was drawing a „line in the sand“ in Kosovo in 1992. He warned that Serbia would be attacked if Serbia „invaded Kosovo“. It was George Bush who initially characterized the Kosovo Conflict in anti-Serbian terms, de-legitimized the borders, and rejected Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. The Bush Administration US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, the self-proclaimed „last ambassador“, Warren Zimmermann, initiated the disastrous foreign policy in Bosnia that resulted in civil war and the needless loss of life and suffering. Bush’s Secretary of State James A. Baker III initiated the anti-Serbian propaganda and infowar against Serbia and the Serbian Orthodox populations of the former Yugoslavia. His callous and cynical statement that the „US has no dog in that fight“ only encouraged the propagandists and the US State Department to manufacture an interest, whether it was to prevent genocide, to exert leadership around the globe, to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, or to find a role for the anachronistic NATO, to prevent Russia from establishing a warm water base in the Adriatic (as espoused by Cokie Roberts of ABC News). It was a propaganda free-for-all. The propaganda that worked best was the Holocaust propaganda and the genocide propaganda. The US had a dog in that fight, it was to see that minorities were protected, that all ethnic groups be given the right of self-determination, that democracy be espoused for all ethnic groups, that justice and democracy prevailed, that secession be negotiated with Belgrade and the successor states and not imposed by Germany. It was Baker who told Margaret Tutweiler to begin the infowar against Serbia as related in his memoirs The Politics of Diplomacy. Tutweiler was told to inform her contacts in the major US media networks what policy line they were to follow, i.e., handout journalism. Baker also informed Haris Siljadzic that the Bosnian Muslim leadership should seek to gain support for their position through public relations and through a propaganda war against the Serbian populace. Bush, Zimmermann, and Baker, thus, bear a large share of the responsibility for the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia and especially the conflict in Bosnia. Moreover, the Republican position on Bosnia and Kosovo, especially as espoused by Bob Dole, differed very little from the Democratic position.
What we are seeing is not only a return of the Reagan/Bush era, but a return of a Vietnam and Cold War era mentality or mind-set. The Bush Administration is made up of Cold Warriors who are anachronisms in the 21st century. There is no longer a Cold War. The primary foreign policy objectives now are economic development, commerce, and trade. Why did Bush select persons who are veterans of the Vietnam and Cold Wars? Is he looking forward or backward?
What about Bosnia and Kosovo? NATO expansion is a goal of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration policy on Yugoslavia is identical to the Clinton Administration position. Bush and Gore and Clinton differ on that very little. So will there be a „philosophical sea change“ in Balkans foreign policy when Bush takes the helm from Clinton? Few recall that it was the George Bush Administration that committed US peace-keeping troops in Somalia, a crisis which the Clinton Administration inherited from Bush. Like-wise, the Bosnia conflict was inherited by Clinton from the Bush Administration. Now George W. Bush seeks to re-construct and re-assemble the Reagan/Bush Administration. The context and the conditions, however, have changed. The assertion that US ground troops will be returned from the Balkans is empty and hollow rhetoric and political posturing. It was Bill Clinton who asserted that US ground troops would be out of Bosnia within one year. Does anyone recall? It is now five years and the US ground troops are still there. With Bush, they will remain for another four years for a combined deployment of nine years. Is this a Vietnam-style quagmire? So the new assertions by the Bush foreign policy team are empty rhetorical statements meant as a slap in the face for the outgoing Administration. Very little looks to change in US foreign policy towards the Balkans. It will be business as usual.
We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.
It was NATO’s first out-of-area operation, against its own Treaty and without a UN mandate. On March 24, 1999.Independent Kosovo was established – against UN SC resolution 1244. Thanks to the Clinton administration and Madeleine Albright. CNN’s Amanpour endorsed it generously on TV with her State Department husband, James Rubin, a chief operator in the non-negotiations at Rambouillet. And TIME of course knew the truth too.Serbia suffered tremendously from the 78 days of indiscriminate, hard bombing. I know because I was there.Finally, Serbia and its president Milosevic was threatened with total destruction of Belgrade. And gave in.Western hubris after the ...
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established in 1949 on the pretext of “containing Soviet influence”, has almost doubled in size within the past two decades alone. In 1998, NATO comprised 16 member states, but with repeated expansions up to Russia’s very borders, it now contains almost 30 countries.Though seldom mentioned in mainstream discourse, NATO is a US-dominated organization, whose orders are issued from Washington and customarily obeyed. The US is by far the largest contributor to the alliance, spending more than all other member nations put together.One of the critical reasons behind NATO’s formation almost 70 years ago, was ...
On July 9, 2006, the U.S. Army charged five US soldiers with the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi, and the murder of her parents and 5-year-old sister. This brutal and senseless war crime raises the issue of rape in war. The lynchpin of US propaganda and infowar spin is that Soviet troops raped German women when the Red Army took Berlin in 1945. This was meant to take away from the Russian military achievement in taking Berlin. The Russian soldiers were “rapists” while US soldiers were “liberators”, handing out chocolate bars, chewing gum, ...
This article by Professor James Tracy first published in August 2015 is of particular relevance in relation to the “fake news” campaign directed against the alternative and independent media.In a bitter irony, the media coverup of the CIA’s covert support to Al Qaeda and the ISIS is instrumented by the CIA which also oversees the mainstream media.Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, ...
This list of shrines is based on a study by Milan Ivanovic, Crkveni spomenici XIII-XX veka (Church Monuments from 13th to 20th century) from Zaduzbine Kosova (The Foundations of Kosovo), Prizren-Belgrade 1987, and other recent publications. Dragan Jovanovic, researcher, compiled the major part of this list.AAJKOBILA (in the Middle Age Prozdrikobila, Pristina): demolished church in the vicinity of the present-day mosque.AJNOVCE (in the Middle Ages Hainovci, K. Kamenica): 1. ruins of the Tamnica monastery with the church built and frescoed in the 14C on the foundations of an older Byzantme basilica; 2. remains of a church in the old cemetery ...
The US sanctions against Venezuela, signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 18, 2014, resulted from charges of protestors’ rights being violated by the socialist government of President Nicolás Maduro.The sanctions allow the Obama administration to deny visas and freeze the assets of Venezuelan officials accused of violating the rights of anti-government groups. These groups, comprised mainly of the right-wing opposition, have been leading violent protests in Caracas since last February. US leaders blame the Venezuelan leadership, headed by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, for the deaths of 43 people during such demonstrations, which included both government ...
Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection, Public Domain & Pinterest.Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!Donate to Support UsWe would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.[wpedon id="4696" align="left"]SaveSave
The interest of European scholars, primarily German and Austrian, in research on Albanian ethnical origin, rose gradually during the second half of the 19th century.[1] Their interest in Albanian and Balkan studies came later in comparison with the study of other ethnic groups and regions in Europe. The reason was that Euro-centrism of the late 19th century and the early 20th century defined the Balkans and its nations as the territory and peoples of obscure identity. In contrast to the “real Europe”, the Balkans was seen as the “Orient”, not part of Europe at all, and above all, it was ...
As heavily-armed US and NATO troops enforced the peace in Bosnia, the press and politicians alike portrayed Western intervention in the former Yugoslavia as a noble, if agonizingly belated, response to an outbreak of ethnic massacres and human rights violations. In the wake of the November 1995 Dayton peace accords, the West was eager to touch up its self-portrait as savior of the Southern Slavs and get on with “the work of rebuilding” the newly “sovereign states.”But following a pattern set early on, Western public opinion had been skillfully misled. The conventional wisdom exemplified by the writings of former US ...
“While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked. The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.” Senator Rand Paul, (R-Kentucky), 7 April 2017.A central concern of the Founding generation, when writing the Constitution, was to ensure that no one man, or one man and his clique, could take the republic to war. To that end, the Constitution ...
There is nothing extraordinary in the science in Serbia. It would not deserve particular attention of the European scientific community, if it were not for the fact that the case of Serbia turns out extraordinary, indeed.Let us start with an extraordinary question: would it be possible a state in contemporary Europe to sucumbe to a fashist rule (or communist or any other totalitarian government)? The answer is extraordinary too - yes. The case in point is Serbia.The trick is marked by Kosovo (see, e.g. P. Grujić, Kosovo Knot, 2014). When this southern province of Serbia, Kosovo and Metohia (Kosovo in ...
America is coming to the rescue of Al Qaeda under a humanitarian mandate. The unspoken agenda is to undermine the Liberation of Aleppo. The pretext and justification for these actions are based on America’s “responsibility to protect” (R2P) the “moderates” in Aleppo from Syrian and Russian attacks and bombing raids.On October 3, the US State Department announced the suspension of bilateral relations with Russia pertaining to Syria (see document below), in response to which, France’s foreign Minister Jean Marc Ayrault was called upon to intermediate at the diplomatic level. Pointing his finger at Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Jean Marc Ayrault casually accused Moscow ...
Could global warming pose the greatest threat to the future of life on the planet? Quite possibly, if we believe the international (and scientific) consensus, despite a widening stratum of debunkers, deniers, and skeptics. What about the prospects of thermonuclear war between the United States and Russia, two countries armed to the max and seemingly moving toward the brink of military conflict? Where does that rate? If the question is asked of most any Beltway denizen, the response might be something along lines of “sounds frightening, but right now we have other priorities, and we can’t lose sight of the ...
Terrorists attacked the Macedonian city of Kumanovo on 9 May, but one wouldn’t know that by reading the Western media’s reaction to the tragedy, despite the fact that they typically mention that 8 police officers were killed and another 37 wounded during the firefight. The media’s disingenuous ‘reporting’ reeks of ulterior motives, which is evidenced most visibly by their reluctance to use the word terrorist without putting it in questionable quotation marks, but also takes more subtle forms such as casting suspicion on the government for complicity in the attack and/or inferring that the attack was some type of legitimate ...
The term Back Door Man has several connotations. In the original blues song written by Willie Dixon, it refers to a man having an affair with a married woman, using the back door to flee before the husband comes home. During the Gerald Ford Presidency, Back Door Man was applied to Dick Cheney as Ford’s White House Chief of Staff and his “skills” at getting what he wanted through opaque means. More and more as Cabinet choices are named, it looks like the entire Trump Presidency project is emerging as Henry A. Kissinger’s “Back Door Man,” in the Cheney meaning of ...
Many articles in the US press have speculated at length in an attempt to define a new ideology called “Putinism.” The pieces serve as an attempt to fit Putin into an outdated Cold War narrative, as if some new ideology in the Russian Federation is playing the role that Marxism-Leninism once played in the Soviet Union, though the current Russian constitution forbids this.The notable leaders of history are rarely ideologues. History judges people mainly by what they achieve, not what they write or say. As Chinese President Xi Jinping recently put it: “The worth of any plan is in its ...
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) guaranteeing sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia and the autonomy of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia, is the highest binding legal document that obliges all UN members, including the member states of the EU, NATO, the OSCE, the OIC, the African Union.Resolution 1244 is the only reliable basis and the framework for any negotiations concerning status. Owing to grave mistakes made by the former Serbian authorities, the UN system has produced certain damaging documents of advisory and non-binding character. It is vital that no similar or even greater mistakes are made either presently ...
Author’s NoteUS and NATO forces invaded Afghanistan more than 16 years ago in October 2001. It’s has been a continuous war marked by US military occupation. The justification is “counterterrorism”. Afghanistan is defined as a state sponsor of terrorism, allegedly responsible for attacking America on September 11, 2001. The war on Afghanistan continues to be heralded as a war of retribution in response to the 9/11 attacks. US troops are still present and deployed in Afghanistan.The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade and occupy Afghanistan under “the doctrine of collective security” was that the September 11 2001 attacks constituted an ...
The superhighway to disaster is already being paved.From Donald Trump’s first days in office, news of the damage to America’s international stature has come hard and fast. As if guided by some malign design, the new president seemed to identify the key pillars that have supported U.S. global power for the past 70 years and set out to topple each of them in turn. By degrading NATO, alienating Asian allies, cancelling trade treaties, and slashing critical scientific research, the Trump White House is already in the process of demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership since ...
at assertion valid? Who will make up the new foreign policy team in the Bush Administration?
The George W. Bush Administration is by all appearances merely a continuation of the George Bush Administration of 1989-1993, which itself was merely a continuation of the Ronald Reagan Administration of 1981-1989. This was the Administration that intervened in Panama and launched the Persian Gulf War. Many of the foreign policy staff of that period will be returning to the new administration, including Powell, Rice, and Perle. The new administration looks a lot like the old administration. Is it the Old World Order or is it the New World Order or the New Old World Order? There is a return to the past rather than a turn to the future. Indeed, the anachronistic Star Wars missile defense shield of the Reagan Administration is returning under the sponsorship of Rumsfeld. Is the US really in danger of missile attack from „rogue states“? Moreover, the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty with the Soviet Union would be violated if the US created a „Missile Shield“. This new/old Star Wars Program endangers relations with Russia. Will there be a new arms race? Will we see a return of the Cold War? Everything old is new again. There is an atmosphere of déjà vu. But what changes does this return entail for the Balkans?
What about Bosnia and Kosovo? NATO expansion is a goal of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration policy on Yugoslavia is identical to the Clinton Administration position. Bush and Gore and Clinton differ on that very little. So will there be a „philosophical sea change“ in Balkans foreign policy when Bush takes the helm from Clinton? Few recall that it was the George Bush Administration that committed US peace-keeping troops in Somalia, a crisis which the Clinton Administration inherited from Bush. Like-wise, the Bosnia conflict was inherited by Clinton from the Bush Administration. Now George W. Bush seeks to re-construct and re-assemble the Reagan/Bush Administration. The context and the conditions, however, have changed. The assertion that US ground troops will be returned from the Balkans is empty and hollow rhetoric and political posturing. It was Bill Clinton who asserted that US ground troops would be out of Bosnia within one year. Does anyone recall? It is now five years and the US ground troops are still there. With Bush, they will remain for another four years for a combined deployment of nine years. Is this a Vietnam-style quagmire? So the new assertions by the Bush foreign policy team are empty rhetorical statements meant as a slap in the face for the outgoing Administration. Very little looks to change in US foreign policy towards the Balkans. It will be business as usual.
