Liberals and much of the left have been badly bamboozled on recent Yugoslav history and the role of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, with former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic having been hyper-demonized and the history of the Balkans rewritten to fit what Lenard Cohen calls the “paradise lost/loathsome leaders” paradigm. But numerous serious scholars have rejected this history and regard the U.S. and other NATO powers as heavily responsible for the disasters since 1990. Lord David Owen’s Balkan Odyssey, and his testimony before the Tribunal, make it very clear that Milosevic was eager for a settlement of the Bosnian wars well before the Dayton agreement in 1995, and that he regularly had major conflicts of interest with the Bosnian Serbs. It is clear from Owens, as well as from other experts that the U.S. government played a key role in the failure of the 1991 Vance plan, the 1992 Cutileiro plan, and the 1993-94 Vance-Owen and Owen Stoltenberg plans, as the Clinton administration armed the Bosnian Muslims, and later the KLA in Kosovo, while encouraging them both to hope (and work) for U.S.-NATO military intervention on their behalf.
Democracy Endangered
Pakistan’s position as a key U.S. ally in the campaign against al-Qaeda has been particularly beneficial to the military-led government of General Pervez Musharraf, whose support is seen by the Bush administration as indispensable to U.S. “anti-terrorism” efforts in the region. Despite the country’s anti-democratic credentials and the army’s continued dominance of the political scene, U.S. economic and diplomatic support has provided Musharraf much needed international legitimacy—and funds.
Guatemala and the Forgotten Anniversary
Democracy has been much in the news of late. At the G-8 Summit in Georgia, one of the main items on the agenda was the democratization of the Middle East, and the recent commemoration of the D-Day anniversary and the passing of President Reagan both generated discussion concerning the defense and spread of democracy.
Human Rights Groups Call on the U.S to Lead Troops Into Sudan’s Darfur and End Genocide
A range of U.S.-based advocacy groups, such as Africa Action and Human Rights Watch, as well as the United Nations, are calling for international intervention to stop “ethnic cleansing” in western Sudan. U.S. groups are calling for the Bush administration to demonstrate leadership on the issue.
A New Generation of Struggle
It took U.S. activists decades of campaigning against the apartheid regime in South Africa to arrive at strategies that, when combined with a commitment to transnational relationships, changed more than individual attitudes. This anti-apartheid movement changed the balance of power in the U.S., the future of South Africa, and lives on both sides of the Atlantic. Ten years later, the threat of moving backward is quite real and the stakes are even higher. In place of an apartheid state we now face a Global Apartheid that demands a U.S. movement at its best and most effective.
Iraq’s Labor Upsurge Wins Support from U.S. Unions
Once the U.S. occupation of Iraq began over a year ago, Iraqi workers lost no time in reorganizing their country’s labor movement. Labor activity spread from Baghdad to the Kurdish north, with the center of the storm in the south, in the oil and electrical installations around Basra, and the port of Um Qasr.
When Intervention is Necessary, Who Can You Call?
Genocide is a unique crime against humanity. This crime is currently unfolding in Darfur, western Sudan, as the world looks on. Yet, even as pressure grows from many quarters (including Congress) for U.S. leadership regarding Darfur, many progressives and people usually concerned about social justice feel that a U.S.-led intervention is the wrong answer. They express concern about negative historical precedents, about exploitative U.S. motivations, and about the current lack of U.S. credibility on the international stage. These are all defensible arguments. But do they render U.S. leadership an impossible option in the case of genocide?
The Limits of Neocolonial Rule
On Friday July 23, the old Mostar bridge, which was bombed by Croat artillery in 1993, re-opened under a media spotlight and amid justified international satisfaction for yet another step forward in the long Bosnian post-war transition. The prevailing view among both tourists and Mostarians seems to be that the bridge “does not quite look the same as before the war.” But nothing in Bosnia looks quite the same as before. After almost a decade of massive international intervention, aimed at strengthening democratic institutions and addressing some of the worst human rights violations, Bosnia has not yet reached political, economic, and social stability. Various Bosnian political elites skilfully continue to play the ethnic card to maintain their control of different sectors of the economy and society. Internal divisions thwart Bosnia’s efforts toward EU membership.
Workers Seek Their Own Voice
Editor’s note: This is a condensed version of a report prepared by the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) which can be found at http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=262.
"Crazy Mike" in "Indian Country"
The reason why Washington is having such a difficult time persuading the world of its good faith and its good works in the “war on terror” was best illustrated on the day U.S. President George W. Bush went to the United Nations.