The Demonizing of a Nation
For centuries, the strategic Balkan Peninsula has featured as a slice of Europe over which wars have been fought, treaties made and broken. It became a vital pawn in the carve-up of nations after World War i, had the boundaries of its ethnic enclaves confused under Tito’s regime, then its various nationalist feelings taken advantage of and played against each other in the latest push for its colonization by the EU.
In this latest process, one nation has been demonized in the mind of the public: Serbia.
In the words of British political economist Rodney Atkinson, “The grossest calumny in the continuing anti-Serb bias in the British press is the myth that it was the Serbs who were ‘nationalists.’ In fact, they (and many Croats, Bosnians and Kosovans) were the multiethnic federalists seeking to preserve Yugoslavia, and the extreme nationalists were those who now govern the statelets of Croatia, Muslim Bosnia and Albanian Kosovo. The EU supported and funded that nationalism which they condemn within the EU but which they exploit in order to undermine nation states outside the EU! Germany’s interest in destroying both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia was to reverse the results of the First World War which established those states” (Free Nations).
There you have in a nutshell an explanation of how Marshall Tito’s united Yugoslavian nation became a multistate Balkan appendage to the European Union.
That the United States was an all-too-willing pawn in the breakup of Yugoslavia—instigated by the German leadership under Chancellor Helmut Köhl and the Vatican under the papacy of John Paul ii—is a matter of documented history. With the ussr having imploded by 1991, the sole superpower left at the time was the U.S. The American administration fell into the trap of helping to play out—and largely pay for—Germany’s foreign policy for gaining control of the strategic Balkan Peninsula under its European Union umbrella.
The U.S. materially contributed to the instigation of the illegal Balkan wars by submitting to pressure from a combination of self-interest groups. As Srdja Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor for Chronicles magazine, has observed, “The motives of [the late U.S. Ambassador Walter] Zimmermann and his political bosses in Washington were not rooted in the concern for the Muslims of Bosnia as such, or indeed any higher moral principle. Their policy had no basis in the law of nations, or in the notions of truth or justice. It was the end result of the interaction of pressure groups within the American power structure …” (July 22).
In addition to the strongest of Vatican and German lobbies, these pressure groups included, among others, the cashed-up Saudis and other Muslims seeking to extend Islamic political interests in Europe. The result was “a virulently anti-Serb, agenda-driven form of realpolitik that was to dominate America’s Bosnian policy. Just as Germany sought to paint its Maastricht diktat on Croatia’s recognition in December 1991 as an expression of the ‘European consensus’ … Washington’s faits accomplis were straightfacedly labeled as ‘the will of the international community’” (ibid.). A gullible media took the bait. The truth as to what actually triggered the Balkan wars was largely ignored.
In discussing Germany’s continuing drive to dominate an imperialist union of European states (progress toward that goal being twice interrupted in the 20th century—by World Wars i and ii), we can hardly underestimate the importance of the first foreign-policy initiative of the unified German nation following the fall of the Berlin Wall in the autumn of 1989.
The recognition of Croatia and Slovenia by Germany, supported shortly after by the Vatican, was the spark that set off the Balkan powder keg. As Trifkovic explained, “The truth is that there was no internal, Bosnian threat to peace at the beginning of 1991 .… Yet once reunited Germany was committed to the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo knew both that the old Yugoslavia was dead and that historic opportunities beckoned” (ibid.). War—plus the carve-up of the Balkan nations into political entities slated for EU domination—was the result.
In the process, the Serbs were demonized.
Loyal Ally Betrayed
James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, stated in a June 2003 speech to a group of Canadian Serbs on the anniversary of the historic battle of Kosovo that during his tenure in Belgrade in the 1990s he was “an eyewitness to the subsequent violence and breakup of the country. I also was a witness to the ‘historical amnesia’ suffered by the political leaders of France, Britain, the United States and my own country, Canada. These countries were Serbia’s old traditional allies in two world wars yet they shamefully stood by and joined in the betrayal of Yugoslavia.”
Ambassador Bissett was scathing in his remarks on the effects of this betrayal of the Serbian peoples by the leaders of those nations with whom they were previously allied. He declared, “The breakup of Yugoslavia was a disaster for the Serbian people. Thousands killed and many more thousands forced to flee their ancestral homelands. … Yet the greatest tragedy of all is that the Serbs have been blamed for everything that has happened since the breakup. They have been blamed for the breakup itself. They have been blamed for starting the violence. They have been blamed for the ethnic cleansing that occurred. They have been blamed for the massacres. They have been blamed for genocide. Finally, they have been blamed for the nato bombing of their own country!”
Search for a Scapegoat
One outcome of this grave injustice was Slobodan Milosevic’s arraignment by the International Court of Justice at The Hague (a body not recognized by the U.S.) to undergo an illegal trial, during which he eventually succumbed to illness and died, denying his accusers the opportunity to render their predetermined verdict of guilty.
Meanwhile, the chase for a Serbian scapegoat continued, consummating in the arrest of Radovan Karadzic in July, setting the scene for the next costly show trial at The Hague.
Srdja Trifkovic observed, “… Karadzic personally and the Serbs collectively were severely damaged by the Western media handling of their mistreatment of Muslim prisoners and by their expulsion of non-Serb civilians in the summer of 1992. Similar atrocities by Croats and Muslims against Serbs and against each other, while no less common, were less conspicuous and deemed unworthy of attention. The Western elite class chose its sympathies at the start and kept up an agitation in favor of military intervention against the Serbs” (op. cit.).
With the mass media so overtly manipulating public opinion, Karadzic was hung, drawn and quartered well before he set foot in the dock. As Trifkovic wrote, “The judgment against Karadzic at the U.S.-sponsored and largely U.S.-funded tribunal at The Hague will be built on this flawed foundation. It will be neither fair or just, and therefore it will be detrimental to what America should stand for in the world. It will also give further credence to the myth of Muslim blameless victimhood, Serb viciousness, and Western indifference, and therefore weaken our resolve in the global struggle euphemistically known as ‘war on terrorism.’ The former is a crime; the latter, a mistake” (ibid.).
Now, as a post-Milosevic charade plays out at The Hague with the trial of Radovan Karadzic, one thing is for certain. The foremost casualty will be the truth. The most condemned will become the Serbs.
So, what about the now deceased Croatian leader Franjo Tudjman’s practice of ethnic cleansing during the Balkan wars? Was this not anything other than a resumption of similar practices carried out under Croatia’s puppet Nazi regime during World War ii? Why aren’t Tudjman’s henchmen—those still at large—subject to a similar manhunt as that mounted for Karadzic?
What about the Muslims who enacted atrocities against Serbs in those same Balkan wars? Where’s the condemnation of the U.S.- and German-backed Albanian terrorists, the kla, for atrocities committed by them against ethnic Serbs and especially their overt ethnic cleansing of Serbian Kosovars?
Why must Karadzic alone be singled out by such as former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who claims he “merits a special place in history” for what he termed as his “enthusiastic advocacy of ethnic cleansing”? (Washington Post, July 23).
It’s simple. It all fits an overarching agenda to which the greater public remains oblivious. It’s revealed in one short sentence in Holbrooke’s Post article: “Karadzic’s arrest is no mere historical footnote .… It also moves Serbia closer to European Union membership” (emphasis mine throughout). Holbrooke is right on the button with that statement.
What needs to be added is that the outcome of Karadzic’s trial has the potential to accelerate the coming clash between Catholic Europe and pan-Islam.
Bible prophecy predicts a future clash between a great northern power and an opposing southern power, both driven by competing imperial motives, each ruled by an ideology directly opposed to the other, yet each having a common goal—global rule!
The forthcoming trial of Karadzic has the potential to greatly aggravate relations between these two powers toward a clash over territorial possession in the strategic Balkan Peninsula.
To understand this vital phase of the emerging, post-U.S.-superpower global order, we must first consider just how the case against Karadzic (and, by imputation, the Serbian nation) has been manufactured and what are the forces behind it. We can then assess how the outcome of this case holds within it the potential for hastening the coming clash between pan-Islam and the European Union.
The overarching reality of the Balkans situation is that of all the ethnic groups the Balkan Peninsula contains, the Serbs are the largest nationality and were the most opposed to the German/Vatican-instigated breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Serbia and the Serb enclaves within Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo simply stood in the way of the EU’s hegemonic goals in its southward and eastward landgrab following the reunification of Germany in 1990. The Serbs also stood in the way of pan-Islam’s efforts to establish a beachhead on European soil in Bosnia from which to further its northward push.
Both EU and Muslim interests coaxed Washington to endorse and even underwrite efforts to have nato forces fight the Serbs on their behalf—the former to aid its colonizing of the whole Balkan Peninsula, the latter to consolidate Islam’s terrorist enclave on European soil.
Thus was initiated an illegal war. nato fought as the EU’s proxy against the Serbs’ sovereign, independent stand against forces bent on destroying their nation—forces intent on prying Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo loose so they could be handed over to the waiting clutches of the EU empire. Meanwhile, the Islamists applauded in the background.
With the media spotlight turned off the real perpetrators of the Balkan wars, the fall guys became the military and political leaders of Serbia’s embattled resistance movement. These include former Yugoslav President Milosevic, Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic, Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko Mladic, Croatian Serb rebel leader Goran Hadzic, and the late Kosovo Serb rebel leader known as Arkan, who escaped the dragnet by being gunned down in a Belgrade hotel in January 2000.
Beaten by the grim reaper in consummating its case against Slobodan Milosevic, the EU—willingly supported by the U.S. State Department—pressured the Serbian leadership into finally seizing Radovan Karadzic, found “hiding” under their noses in Belgrade, and handing him over to The Hague for trying as a war criminal. This, so the case against the Serbs could be further “legitimized” via a highly visible show trial publicized by an already rabid anti-Serb mass media.
Thus is Serbia set to be further demonized and beaten into submission, ultimately to be colonized by EU dictate, with the willing support of the brainwashed international community. In EU terms, Bosnian Muslims (a hotbed of Islamist terrorist training) will then be encircled by the EU.
So what facts support the case against the accused?
Forging the Case
That atrocities were committed by all sides in the Balkan wars is a given. Ample documented evidence exists to prove that. Atrocities are simply part of the nature of war.
Yet the fact that similar atrocities, involving mass murder, mass rape and attempts at genocide, were being perpetrated in a number of other countries before, during and after those committed in the Balkan wars is also a given. Witness Rwanda, Somalia, the Congo, Sudan, China, et al.
Yet, what Srdja Trifkovic describes as a “doctrine of non-equivalence” serves the EU well in this respect.
Right now the EU is keen to get on with the job of cementing its empire. It will continue to be frustrated in this process till it has the Serbs under control, and the Muslim enclaves within the Balkans held at bay.
With a more EU-compliant leadership finally ensconced in Belgrade, it’s time for Europe to hold the Serbs to ransom by building a case against Karadzic. Once again it will widely publicize the demonizing of the Serbs—and thus secure overwhelming support for gathering all that was once sovereign Serbian territory into the EU’s gaping maw.
The problem with the case against the accused is that too little clearly documented, provable, factual evidence for that case actually exists. One reason for this, as political analyst Michael Parenti observed, is the greatly biased media coverage of the Balkan wars: “Grisly incidents of Croat and Muslim atrocities against the Serbs rarely made it into the U.S. press, and when they did they were accorded only passing mention. Meanwhile Serb atrocities were played up and sometimes even fabricated .… John Ranz, chair of Survivors of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, usa, asks: Where were the tv cameras when hundreds of Serbs were slaughtered by Muslims near Srebrenica? The official line, faithfully parroted in the U.S. media, is that Bosnian Serb forces committed all the atrocities at Srebrenica. …
“The Serbs were blamed for the infamous Sarajevo market massacre. But according to the report leaked out on French tv, Western intelligence knew that it was Muslim operatives who had bombed Bosnian civilians in the marketplace in order to induce nato involvement. Even international negotiator David Owen, who worked with Cyrus Vance, admitted in his memoir that the nato powers knew all along that it was a Muslim bomb” (Michael Parenti Political Archive, May 2000).
Still, despite the combination of proven media bias and fabricated stories about alleged Serb atrocities, the deceit persists. American political commentator Mary Mostert has observed that “with the death of Slobodan Milosevic we still are getting cartoons and stories about the ‘200,000 people’ that Milosevic supposedly killed. Only—no one could find the bodies” (Renew America, March 20, 2006).
The institution charged with trying these Serb leaders for war crimes, The Hague’s International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, has, over the years, received proof from the reports of multiple international forensic teams demonstrating that claims of Serb “atrocities” were exaggerated and quite often invented.
Nevertheless, anyone responsible for adjudicating the case of Radovan Karadzic will find it an impossible task to desist from allowing bias to creep into their analysis of the “facts.” Hence, judgment is bound to become impaired, justice clouded and equity destroyed amid the surrounding murk of political intrigue and media deceit. The Karadzic case is destined to become another Milosevic-type show trial, yet again underlining the oft-stated dictum that truth is the first casualty of war.
So the mud still sticks to the Serbs. It simply has to be made to stick, otherwise the EU/NATO/U.S. State Department case against the Serbs falls apart through lack of sufficient bona fide evidence!
Stratfor, commenting on the false reports of mass murder by Serbs in the Kosovo war, spotlighted one major fact on which the case against the Serbs—albeit in Bosnia Croatia or Kosovo—truly hinges: “It really does matter how many were killed. The foreign policy and political implications are substantial. There is a line between oppression and mass murder. It is not a bright, shining one, but the distinction between hundreds of dead and tens of thousands is clear. The blurring of that line has serious implications not merely for nato’s integrity, but for the notion of sovereignty. If a handful—or a few dozen—people are killed in labor unrest, does the international community have the right to intervene by force? By the very rules that nato has set up, the magnitude of slaughter is critical” (Oct. 17, 1999).
Get the point?
If the fabricated images and statistics regarding atrocities allegedly committed by the Serbs are proven false, the very case justifying the EU/nato/U.S. invasion of Serbia is null and void! Then those who colluded to initiate the illegal Balkan wars could well be said to be guilty of war crimes themselves! They simply will never allow that to happen!
The extent to which nato’s integrity (and, by direct association, the German/Vatican nexus which initiated the whole process) is brought into question by the pending Karadzic case is highlighted by astute EU watcher John Laughland, who wrote in the Brussels Journal, “The arrest of Radovan Karadzic … has provided yet another occasion for all the tired old propaganda about the Balkans wars to be taken out of the cupboard and given one last airing. In particular, the war is presented as one between a Serb aggressor and an innocent victim, the Bosnian Muslims, and the former is accused of practicing genocide against the latter. Even if one accepts that crimes against humanity were committed during the Balkan wars, it should be obvious that both these claims are absurd.
“[T]he Serbs were no more the aggressors in the Bosnian civil war than Abraham Lincoln was an aggressor in the American Civil War. The Yugoslav Army was in place all over Bosnia-Herzegovina because that republic was part of Yugoslavia. Bosnian Muslims (like Croats) left the army in droves and set up their own militia instead, as part of their drive for independence from Belgrade. This meant that the Yugoslav Army lost its previous strongly multiethnic character and became largely Serb. It did not mean that Serb forces entered the territory of Bosnia, or even that the Serbs attacked the hapless Bosnian Muslims” (July 23).
Case for the Defense
John Laughland outlined the case for the defendant thus: “In fact, the Bosnian Serb war effort was no more or less legitimate than the Bosnian Muslim war effort. The Muslims wanted to secede from Yugoslavia (and were egged on to do this by the Americans and the Europeans) while the Bosnian Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia. It was as simple as that. …
“In any case, once the Muslims had seized power in Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs sought not to conquer the whole republic but instead simply to fight for the secession of their territories from Muslim control. … If the Muslims had the right unilaterally to secede from Yugoslavia, why should the Bosnian Serbs not have had the right unilaterally to secede from the new state of Bosnia-Herzegovina which had never before existed as a state, and to which the Bosnian Serbs had no loyalty whatever?” (ibid.).
Laughland clearly sees the propaganda ploy that will be behind the case about to be brought against Karadzic: “What is clear is that the Srebrenica massacre cannot possibly be described as genocide. Even the most ardent pro-Muslim propagandists agree that the victims of the massacre there were all men. The Bosnian Serbs claim that they were combatants (although that is certainly not an excuse for killing them) but the point is that an army bent on genocide would precisely not have singled out men for execution but would have killed women too” (ibid.).
So the Karadzic show trial will be yet another public demonization of the unfortunate Serbs. Still, the case is worth watching for another very profound reason.
The outcome is vitally important to two competing powers that are heading toward an inevitable clash—an ever southward- and eastward-extending European Union (Daniel 8:9), and the Iranian-backed northward-pushing pan-Islam incursion into Europe (Daniel 11:40). The Karadzic case has the potential to open a real can of maggots that could soon become nasty flies in the ointment of the EU’s Balkan strategy.
John Laughland demonstrated this potential for a clash between Islam and Catholic Europe over Bosnia-Herzegovina quite clearly: “The Srebrenica massacre may well have been a crime against humanity but it is impossible to see how it can be categorized as genocide.
“Unfortunately, there is a very clear political reason why it has been so categorized. The Muslim president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haris Silaijdzic, said carefully on CNN the day Karadzic was captured that Karadzic’s trial was only the beginning of the process by which justice would be done in Bosnia. He said that there were hundreds of thousands of Muslims who had been ethnically cleansed by ‘Karadzic and Milosevic’ and that their project therefore remained in force. The clear implication of what he was saying was this: If the very existence of the Bosnian Serb republic (the autonomous region within Bosnia carved out from the republic during the civil war) is found, in a court of law, to have had as its president a man, Karadzic, who is convicted of genocide in the process of creating it, then its status would be illegitimate and it should be abolished. The Muslims continue to claim control over the whole of the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the Serbs merely want the preservation of their considerable autonomy within it.
In other words, far from bringing peace to the Balkans, it is quite possible that a conviction of Karadzic for genocide will reopen the Dayton settlement and egg the Muslims on to claim control over the Serb republic too” (ibid.).
That outcome is the last thing that the European Union would want!
For almost two decades, our editor in chief has been warning of an overt geopolitical push by pan-Islam, led by the chief sponsor of international terror, Iran, against the European Union. Both the Iran-led Islamic crescent and the German-dominated European Union are hegemonic powers that are bent on global domination. Sooner or later they are going to get in each other’s way as each pursues this common goal at the expense of the other.
Should The Hague war crimes trial of Radovan Karadzic result in a conviction for genocide, it just may add another powerful weapon to the Islamists’ armor in their northward push against the opposing force of the European Union.
The outcome of the Karadzic trial at The Hague could well contribute to the prophesied clash of opposing civilizations—the push of the Islamic south against the Catholic north—coming much sooner rather than later!
Originally published in October 2008
Author: Ron Fraser
Source: The Trumpet
Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection & Pinterest.
Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!
Donate to Support Us
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.