"NULLA E' PER SEMPRE"
Intervista all'ambasciatore statunitense Warren Zimmerman
sul giornale croato "Danas", 12 gennaio 1992
The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm
The URL for printable version is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing2.htm
NOTHING IS FOREVER
U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmerman's interview, Jan. 12, 1992, in the
Croatian
daily 'Danas' ('Today')
Translated by www.emperors-clothes.com (6-1-00)
"We are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states
peacefully." (Warren Zimmerman, US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Jan., 1992)
The following interview is important. Many have argued that the U.S.
opposed
the breakup of Yugoslavia. Warren Zimmerman was US Ambassador to
Yugoslavia
during the key period, when Slovenia and Croatia were fighting to
secede. In
this interview he makes the real U.S. position quite clear.
A week before the interview a key event occurred. Europe recognized
secessionist Croatia and Slovenia as independent states. Balkans scholar
Raju
Thomas refers to this as "a new method of aggression: Diplomatic
Recognition."
"Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
state
[Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed since
December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition policy
proved
to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing sovereign
independent
states. When several rich and powerful states decide to take a sovereign
independent state apart through the policy of recognition, how is this
state
supposed to defend itself? There can be no deterrence or defense against
this
form of destruction." (Raju Thomas, "Nationalism, Secession and
Conflict:
Legacies from the Former Yugoslavia.")
The U.S. did not immediately endorse the European move. Does this mean
the
U.S. opposed secession? I think the U.S. policy was two-faced. The U.S.
government paid lip service to peaceful solutions and withheld
recognition of
Slovenia and Croatia, but at the same time, US officials and covert
agencies
worked to dismember Yugoslavia in a manner aimed at producing a Bosnian
nation-state run by Islamic Fundamentalist proxies under the thumb of
the US.
Zimmerman's interview in 'Danas' supports this view. Is the interview
accurate? If an Ambassador is seriously misquoted he would respond in
order
to correct the record; but Zimmerman never denied or corrected any part
of
the interview. There is no known reason to question its accuracy.
Moreover, subsequent US actions dovetail with the views expressed here.
For
example, consider this from Zimmerman:
"It appears to us that he [Bosnian Islamic Fundamentalist leader
Izetbegovic]
needs help in his effort to resist the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
and I
believe it would be tragic if someone from the Croatian side would try
cooperating with Serbia in the dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
Later, when the Bosnian Islamist leader Izetbegovic signed an agreement
with
Croatian and Serbian leaders to peacefully partition Bosnia, Zimmerman
met
with Izetbegovic and 'helped' by persuading him to renege on the deal
and
demand instead a unitary Bosnian state under Islamist control.
Izetbegovic
did renege, as Zimmerman asked, and this launched the Bosnian civil war.
It is important to remember when reading this interview that Zimmerman
was
speaking for the most world's only Superpower. Whatever Zimmerman said
would
be read carefully by all sides. He used the interview to encourage
Croatian
chauvinism, Kosovo Albanian secessionism and Islamic Fundamentalism, the
very
forces that Nazi Germany relied on in Yugoslavia in World War II.
Zimmerman said he was against destabilization but talk is cheap and
every
diplomat knew that a united Yugoslavia was the key to stability in the
Balkans. He said pretty things about peace but he unleashed the forces
of war.
Here's the interview.
'DANAS', 21 January 1992
NOTHING IS FOREVER
An Interview with Warren Zimmerman
Zimmerman: First of all, I have to point out that the US and the
American
people exceptionally appreciate the Croatian people and sympathize with
you
for all you have been through in the past few months. We know you have
been a
victim of a Serbian and Army aggression, and in that situation you
reacted
with great courage and dignity. I am not saying this as a compliment to
the
fighting abilities of Croatia - though they are considerable - but I
wish to
point out that a great deal of restraint was demanded of Croatia. I
refer to
the lifting of the siege of military barracks, which was in our opinion
one
of the keys to the possibility of a stable peace. This also goes for
honoring
the cease-fires, which is always a critical issue. I would also point
out the
agreement to the UN peace plan, which all the sides have accepted. In
all
these matters, the people and government of Croatia showed its
extraordinary
worth.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's reference to the secessionists' "restraint"
is
false. While pretending to observe a cease fire, the secessionists
provoked
and attacked Yugoslav troops in their barracks. Zimmerman lies
throughout the
interview. His words are best read not as honest reporting but as
evidence of
US intentions.
DANAS: Still, everyone wonders why the recognition has been delayed?
Zimmerman: I have to admit that at this moment the recognition of
Croatia is
not on our agenda. But this does not mean that this temporary American
approach will be around forever. We have always tried to approach
recognition
in a way that would contribute most to a permanent peace, and that same
approach has been taken by Cyrus Vance and Lord Carrington.
Jared comments: Obviously he is promising US recognition - just not yet.
DANAS: What does that mean in terms of time?
Zimmerman: I cannot tell you the exact date. But that is certainly
something
to be kept in mind, and something we are thinking of, but we are also
always
wondering what kind of benefit that would bring Croatia while the war is
still going on and while Croatia is still being occupied by enemy
troops. We
thought the best way for the JNA [Yugoslav Army] to leave Croatia was
the one
proposed by the UN, as it specifically states that the JNA must leave
Croatia. We also believe that we can do the most to make this plan work
is if
we keep the possibility to pressure Serbia, Serbian and JNA leadership
as
much as possible. We are doing that decisively, and I believe we are in
a
much better position to do that now, as we have not recognized Croatia
yet.
That way, we have preserved authority and credibility with Serbia and
the
Army that we would not have if we had followed Germany and recognized
Croatia. I believe what we are doing is beneficial to achieving true
Croatian
independence.
Jared comments: The US was withholding formal recognition not out of a
desire
to hold Yugoslavia together but out of a desire to destroy it in the
most
efficient and profitable way.
DANAS: So you wish to preserve your influence?
Zimmerman: Yes, but I also want to add that this does not mean in any
way
that Serbia or the JNA have any right of veto in the American
recognition
policy. This is not the case.
DANAS: Many claim that you generally support Europe, but at the same
time
aren't too confident about the European policy?
Zimmerman: I wouldn't say so. I know that Lord Carrington believes that
recognition of Yugoslav republics that have requested it could be
premature
in these circumstances. We have tried to clear a path that I believe
could
lead to the result you want, which is a truly independent Croatia, free
of
occupation and enemy forces.
Jared's comments: Zimmerman refers to the Army of Yugoslavia, a country
to
whom he was U.S. Ambassador, a country which included Croatia, as an
enemy
force. Amazing.
The "enemy" Army did not invade Croatia. It was present in Croatia just
as it
was present in other parts of Yugoslavia. It was just as illegal for
Croatia
to secede from Yugoslavia as it was for the southern states to secede
from
the U.S. 140 years ago. The JNA would have been justified in waging
total
war, just as President Abraham Lincoln waged total war; but the JNA did
not.
Zimmerman: We very decisively told the Serbian and Army leadership that
they
have to honor the obligations they accepted and completely leave
Croatia. We
also said - and I think we have been able to do it with more authority
since
we have not recognized Croatia - that the recognition of Croatia by
European
countries cannot be the reason for Serbia or the Army to try reversing
Croatia's independence or imposing solutions on Croatia by force.
DANAS: This is maybe a personal question. You are the American
Ambassador,
but it is hard to say which country you are the Ambassador to. Does
Yugoslavia still exist?
Zimmerman: That is a very good question, and a question that is very
hard to
answer. We are now precisely in that situation where a world is dying
and
another, different world is struggling to be born. In other words, it is
a
transition and as I said many times before, our main concern in it is
peace.
While these changes are going on, our foremost task is to contribute
that
they happen in a peaceful, rather than violent, environment.
Jared comments: As subsequent events demonstrated, 'Peace' meant the US
and
its proxy forces could do whatever they liked but the Yugoslav Army was
not
allowed to fight back.
Zimmerman: It is inevitable that these changes are accompanied with
uncertainties. I am an Ambassador accredited with the government of
Yugoslavia. But at the same time, it is completely clear that we do not
recognize Branko Kostic, who usurped the right to speak on behalf of the
Yugoslav Presidency. Since he made that attempt I have not had any
contacts
with him, nor do I intend to ever contact him. Most of the duties I
perform
in Belgrade and Yugoslavia are reduced to relations with the Republics,
which
my government considers extremely useful. There are many gray areas from
a
legal standpoint, but this is natural in times of transition.
DANAS: Are you encountering the same difficulties while meeting with the
military leaders?
Zimmerman: I recently met with General Adzic, and I met with General
Kadijevic right before he resigned. I believe it is exceptionally
important
to maintain contact with the Yugoslav military leadership, as they have
to
know our position. And our position is clear: we believe that the Army
is
primarily responsible for the war in Croatia.
Hence they have an enormous obligation to honor the UN peace plan, and
to
show restraint in Croatia. And in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well, which is
turning into a dangerous place. If we weren’t talking to them, we would
not
be able to tell them all these things.
DANAS: Many unconfirmed stories indicate that you prevented total war on
several occasions, using this type of influence?
Zimmerman: There is exaggeration in that. But I can say that the US has
always used the measure of influence it has to promote peace, not war.
That
is why I say that we are most concerned with the possibility of a war
breaking out in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We think it would be a horrible
tragedy
which could have consequences on the situation in Croatia, which at the
present time looks promising.
DANAS: Does that mean you support Izetbegovic’s plan?
Zimmerman: Let me try to elaborate on our policy towards
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We firmly believe that the territorial integrity of every republic must
be
preserved, and we clearly said to the Serbian government and the Army
leadership that we will never recognize any conquest in Croatia. Equally
important is the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is
most
threatened at this moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is
attempting
to tear away a piece of it. We consider that extremely dangerous, and we
said
so to the Army and the Serbian leadership.
Jared comments: Note how Zimmerman places matters upside down.
He speaks of maintaining the integrity of 'Bosnia' as if it were a
national
entity. But historically a country called 'Bosnia' never existed. An
administrative unit called 'Bosnia' (similar to Rhode Island or South
Dakota)
was created by the Tito government. That's it.
With this in mind, consider his statement that the US supports "the
territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is most threatened at
this
moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is attempting to tear away
a
piece of it."
In fact, the Islamic Fundamentalist forces in Bosnia were trying to tear
a
piece away from a real nation, recognized for 70 years - Yugoslavia.
This
violated international law. The Islamists wanted to justify their
secession
(that is, theft of territory) by holding a referendum. The Serbs
boycotted
the referendum. The Islamists held it anyway, and won; but this violated
the
Yugoslav constitution which required the approval of the three major
ethnic
groups before extreme action could be taken. Moreover the secessionist
movement only existed based on foreign intrigue, personified by Mr.
Zimmerman. The Islamists would never have dared to push for secession
without
the promise of outside (U.S.) help and in practice Mr. Zimmerman prodded
Islamist leader Izetbegovic into starting the Bosnian civil war.
The Bosnian Serbs had had grim experience with Islamic Fundamentalism
during
W.W. II. Islamic Fundamentalists were important supporters of the Nazis
in
Bosnia. They formed their own SS Division. They helped slaughter
hundreds of
thousands of Serbs. The Islamist leader Elija Izetbegovic was a pro-Nazi
Islamic Fundamentalist youth organizer during the War.
Knowing the horror that would follow if foreign-backed Islamists once
again
ruled Bosnia, the local Serbs wanted to stay with Yugoslavia. These
Serbs,
mainly farmers, owned the majority of land in Bosnia. The Serbs wanted
to
make sure that if Bosnian Islamists seceded the Serbs would not be
forced to
live under their rule.
Zimmerman: As for Mr. Izetbegovic, we heard that some call him a Muslim
fundamentalist. We know what fundamentalism really does, as we were its
victims in Iran. That is why we do not believe that Izetbegovic is some
sort
of fundamentalist. Actually, it seems like he is a moderate politician
who is
trying to do the best in a difficult situation.
Jared's comments:The reasoning here is charmingly ostrich-like: Proof by
Rejection of Negative Consequence. 1) Fundamentalists are terrible. 2)
It
would be terrible if Izetbegovic were a fundamentalist. 3) Therefore
Izetbegovic is not a fundamentalist.
Fortunately Izetbegovic wrote a book about his beliefs. It is called
"The
Islamic Declaration" ("Islamska deklaracija"). Here's an excerpt:
"... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the
incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace
or
coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non-Islamic societies and
political institutions. ... Islam clearly excludes the right and
possibility
of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is
no
question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an
expression
and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..." (p. 22)
It is ironic that Zimmerman uses Iran as the example of what Izetbegovic
is
not. Actually, Izetbegovic was especially fond of the Iranian
Fundamentalists. Moreover, the US encouraged Iran to smuggle arms and
terrorist trainers into Bosnia during the fighting, despite an embargo
on
importing arms. When challenged about this at a Congressional hearing,
Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith confirmed that the US had indeed
approved the shipments.
Zimmerman: It appears to us that he needs help in his effort to resist
the
partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I believe it would be tragic if
someone
from the Croatian side would try cooperating with Serbia in the
dismemberment
of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That would mean that Croatia is destroying the
very
principle on the basis of which it won international support for its
struggle.
DANAS: There are some very clear desires to that extent in Croatia.
Zimmerman: I read some hints to that effect in the Croatian press, so I
have
to say that the dismemberment of Bosnia – no matter who does it – cannot
win
the support of the United States. We would consider that a policy of
destabilization and a violation of international principles that could
lead
to very unpleasant consequences in our relations.
Jared's comments:This is Theater of the Absurd. International law says
nothing about alteration of borders within a state. It only forbids the
destabilization inherent in altering national boundaries - which is
precisely
what Zimmerman is supporting by insisting on the unimpeded creation of a
new
state of Bosnia.
Zimmerman: I believe, therefore, that if there is a tendency in Croatia
to
team up with Serbia in a break-up of Bosnia, that tendency must be
overcome.
DANAS: American foreign policy is often based on two interlocking
principles
– a carrot and a stick. What would be a carrot and what would be the
stick in
this situation?
Zimmerman: That is a good question, and I will try to give a very
specific
answer in regard to the war in Croatia. When the war is over and when
Croatia
restores its full sovereignty upon the Army’s withdrawal, that carrot
and
that stick have to exist for the other side as well.
Jared comments: This is one of the best examples of the Orwellian
rewriting
of reality, a special feature of the New World Order of which Zimmerman
was a
key architect. Croatia had 'full sovereignty' only one time in history:
that
was as the (Fascist-Clerical) Independent State of Croatia during the
German
occupation of Yugoslavia.
Zimmerman: The stick would be that the United States or any other
Western
country - to the best of my knowledge – will never recognize any
violation of
Croatia’s territorial integrity. In other words, the Croatian borders
will
remain as they were before the war, there will be no changes of borders
by
conquest. That stick would also be what I mentioned a moment ago. No one
will
support any violent re-establishment of Yugoslavia.
Jared comments: Does this sound like the man is opposing the breakup of
Yugoslavia?
DANAS: Any Yugoslavia?
Zimmerman: Any kind of Yugoslavia.
DANAS: Even the smallest one?
Zimmerman: We told Serbia and the Army clearly that we will not
recognize
Serbia as Yugoslavia’s successor, that we will not recognize any
so-called
Yugoslav government that is in fact just another Serb government.
That is why I do not wish to have any contact with Mr. Kostic, and why
the
American government challenged the credentials of the Yugoslav
delegation a
few days ago at the OSCE conference in Prague. But allow me to finish my
previous answer about sticks. Carrots are important, too, they form a
part of
this reality. There are some problems with the rights of the Serb
population
in Croatia. We do not think the way Serbia and the Army approached those
issues was justified, they went about it in a completely wrong way. But
the
problem exists and I think that Croatia, if it wants a stable peace,
should
be ready to grant a significant political autonomy to the Serb areas in
Croatia. We welcome as a good sign the fact that the Croatian assembly
passed
the Minority Law, which is a great step along that road. I hope that
Croatian
government will continue being so flexible, as it seems to me that a
maximum
degree of political autonomy on the local level in Serb-inhabited areas
will
be necessary. This is already a part of the UN peace plan on a
provisional
basis, as well as Lord Carrington’s plan, which counts on a longer time
frame. We think that every Serb leadership needs to be able to say that
Serb
rights in Croatia are completely protected with international
guarantees.
That would be in the interest of Croatia as well, as it would take a
significant problem off the agenda.
Jared comments: A number of points about this.
First, as we shall see below, the Croatian regime had launched a massive
campaign of terror against Serbian residents. Zimmerman is suggesting
that
Serbia be induced to accept the breakup of Yugoslavia by dangling the
carrot
of less violence towards Serbs in Croatia.
Second, Zimmerman avoids a discussion of the actual, day to day terror
that
was being directed against Serbs in Croatia. Instead he expresses
concern and
wishes and hopes for better treatment. The value of such US expressions
of
concern became clear three years later when the US planned, led and
provided
air cover for the eviction, carried out by the Croatian Army, of over
250,000
Serbs, mainly farmers, from the Krajina, which was claimed by Croatia.
This
was the worst act of genocide in Europe since W.W.II.
To get an idea of the anti-Serb hatred whipped up by the Croatian
government
throughout this period, read the following excerpt from a speech
delivered by
Croatian President Tudjman after the anti-Serb campaign culminated in
the
violent eviction of the Serbian population of the Krajina section.
Here's
Tudjman:
"There can be no return to the past, to the times when [Serbs] were
spreading
cancer in the heart of Croatia, a cancer that was destroying the
Croatian
national being." He [that is, Tudjman] then went on to speak of the
"ignominious disappearance" of the Serbs from Krajina "so it is as if
they
have never lived here... They didn't even have time to take with them
their
filthy money or their filthy underwear!" (From 'The invasion of Serbian
Krajina' by Greg Elich)
DANAS: Washington used to firmly advocate human rights in Kosovo, but
now
there is only mention of Croatia.
Jared comments: This is hyperbole. Washington's real concern about
Croatia
was that it not work against the Islamists in Bosnia. Indeed, Washington
hired the MPRI, a semi-private military outfit made up of 'retired'
officers
and CIA types to train the Croatian army which continued to be used
primarily
against Serbian civilians.
Zimmerman: I am glad you asked that question, so I can clarify things.
The
violation of rights of Albanians in Kosovo in my opinion is the worst
violation of human rights, and at this moment, there is none worse in
Europe.
It was somewhat peaceful in Kosovo last year, but the basic colonial
nature
of Serbian control has not changed. We have not lost interest in that
issue,
and we will not lose interest until it is solved. I cannot imagine a
final
political solution coming out of The Hague and Brussels that would only
deal
with Croatia. It has to encompass the rights of everyone; thus also the
problems in Kosovo.
Jared comments: Zimmerman was the Ambassador to Yugoslavia. Coming from
him,
this is a clear statement of support for Kosovo secessionism. Why?
Because a)
there was a strong secessionist movement in Kosovo at the time; b)
international law, expressed the Helsinki Accords, forbade the redrawing
of
national borders. However, international law did allow for
self-determination
for colonies. So by calling Kosovo a colony Zimmerman was making a
sneaky
argument for secession.
In fact, Zimmerman's statement is nonsense.
First, Albanians were not oppressed in Yugoslavia. Ethnic Albanian
unrest was
based on beliefs: they wanted to recreate the World War II entity,
Greater
Albania, and they wanted Kosovo to be Serb-and-"Gypsy"-free. In this
sense
their attitude had much in common with some whites in the segregationist
south. Many news articles during the 1980s report that it was Serbs, not
Albanians, who were oppressed in pre-1989 Kosovo. (2)
Colonialism means exploitation: the Colony is organized to serve the
needs of
the Imperial Power. Thus in the African colonies, railroad lines were
built
fanning out from coastal ports so that raw materials could easily be
taken
out of the country. Everything is best in the Imperial country.
Everything is
worst in the Colony.
This was dramatically not the case in Kosovo; Kosovo was poor, but not
due to
exploitation. As engineers Tika Jankovic and Petar Makara point out, the
engineering school in Pristina (Kosovo) had the finest modern equipment,
whereas the engineering school in Belgrade (inner Serbia) had to make do
with
pre-World War II equipment as late as the 1970s. (3)
Such anecdotal evidence is supported by the NY Times. The following was
written in 1984, before the Times adopted an anti-Serbian policy:
"Yugoslavia's Albanians: Poor, Proud and Prolific
By Michael T. Kaufman
..."The thrust toward republic status, for example, is in large measure
motivated by the clause in the Yugoslav Constitution that technically
permits
any republic to secede.
"As explained by a knot of [Albanian] students in Pristina, this right
to
withdraw could pave way for creating a greater Albania, linking Kosovo
with
the present Albania... with the capital shifting from Tirana to
Pristina...
"The students had no answers as to how such a nation could support
itself...
"[U]nder the complicated transfer arrangement, Kosovo receives
70 percent of its budget from the richer components of the Yugoslav
union...." ('New York Times', October 5, 1984)
DANAS: Croatia and Slovenia offered a year ago the confederacy solution
akin
to what Izetbegovic is proposing today. But the clock cannot be turned
back.
Zimmerman: Obviously, it is too late for that now. We are aiming for a
dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states peacefully, and when
any
new union is constructed – if it is constructed – it would have to be
founded
on sovereign decisions. In other words, it has to be built from the
bottom
up, rather than from top to the bottom.
DANAS: All Croatian politicians agree that it is necessary first to
secure
independence and sovereignty, and only then decide on future links.
Zimmerman: I recall the words of Pierre Lavalle, prime minister of the
Vichy
government who made a tremendous mistake by collaborating with the
Germans
but still said something very wise: "Governments come and go, but the
geography is eternal. France will forever remain Germany’s neighbor."
Croatia
will remain a neighbor of Serbia, and I hope it will be possible to soon
normalize the relations that geography makes inevitable.
DANAS: De Gaulle thought otherwise. Many were surprised by the news that
you
spent the New Year’s eve at a peace demonstration with the Serbian
opposition. Some said immediately that this is the sign that both sides
– the
UN and the US – want a different Serbia and different Serbian leaders.
Zimmerman: I went to this vigil to show our strong support to cessation
of
hostilities, and I think Mr. Vance had the same reasons. The peace
movement
in Serbia is a sort of an opposition. It does not accept war. It opposes
the
government responsible for that war. We support them in their demands
for
peace. We consider it especially important – not only in Serbia - that
the
political opposition is free to act. But in Serbia, this is not the
case.
Opposition leader Vuk Draskovic was just indicted for some things that
happened at the March 9 demonstrations last year. The media, especially
television, are hostile to all opponents of the government, and that
will
have to change if Serbia has any aspirations towards democracy. On that
occasion, we did not support any specific party [except for being
against the
one chosen by the people – PM] but we advocated democratic norms and
values,
values of peace and free press.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's support for Vuk Draskovic is interesting.
Before
the Croatian and Slovenian secession, Draskovic was a Tarzan Nationalist
- a
real chest beater and it was in this guise that he opposed Milosevich
who was
for the continuation of Yugoslavia. But then Draskovic advocated a
policy of
non-resistance when the Yugoslav Army was attacked in its barracks, and
when
Serbs were attacked as well.
Note also how Zimmerman uses his continued presence in Belgrade: he
encourages the breakup of Yugoslavia and threatens Belgrade if it tries
to
stop it.
DANAS: Your statements have been frequently attacked in Belgrade and in
Croatia...
Zimmerman: And Slovenia and Montenegro...
DANAS: But which one of your critical remarks would you say again in
regard
to Croatia?
Zimmerman: Croatia is a democratic state, but it is a young democracy
tempted
by war.
Jared comments: This is amazing.
This new 'democratic' state was a conscious imitation of the Independent
State of Croatia, notorious in World War II for creating Jasenovac, the
first
death camp, in which about a million Serbs, 'Gypsies', Jews and
antifascists
were killed using the most horrifying methods.
The new Independent State of Croatia, under Franjo Tudjman, a holocaust
denier, brought back the Fascist Croatian flag, the currency, the army
uniforms, and the straight-arm salute. It renamed streets after leaders
of
the Ustashi fascists; its constitution defined Croatia as a racial state
(a
state of ethnic Croats, not, like Serbia, a state of all its citizens,
regardless of ethnicity.)
The 'democratic elections' took place in an atmosphere of terror and
with
vast sums pumped in from Germany and other Western sources and from
pro-fascist Croatians abroad. The HOS (Croatian Military Group) harassed
and
killed Serbs and opponents of the regime. The method of identification
was
straightforward. First, everyone was ordered to sign a pledge of
allegiance.
Serbs and antifascists who refused to sign this pledge to the
resurrected
Ustashi state were first fired from their jobs, then fired at.
The loyalty oath did not ferret out all the undesirable elements. So the
HOS
ordered everyone to display the Croatian (fascist) checkerboard flag in
their
window. This flag is the Croatian equivalent of the swastika. Then the
HOS
went from street to street and harassed or beat up or killed those
(whether
Serbian or Croatian) who refused to display the flag.
The HOS dynamited the homes of undesirables, often with the people
inside.
Jews lived in fear. Tens of thousands of Serbs were driven out - perhaps
300,000 even before the forced exodus from the Krajina in 1995.
By referring to this terrorized territory as a "young democratic state"
Zimmerman made perfectly clear that he approved of the HOS actions. His
mild
rebukes were cosmetic: made for the sake of appearance.
The American media suppressed the the news about Croatia. Most people
never
learned there was an anti-Serbian terror.
There were a few exceptions to the press blackout. One was an article in
the
'New York Times' which I have posted after the interview. It appeared
rather
late, in 1997, well after Croatia had finished purging 600,000 Serbs.
The
article is a bit odd. The writer, Chris Hedges, suggests that fascists
were
just then becoming powerful in Croatia, whereas this had actually
happened
years earlier, in 1990, '91 and '92. Perhaps Hedges wrote the article in
the
early 1990s and the Times editors held it back until the fascists had
completed their Western-assigned tasks: declaring independence and
driving
out the Serbs. In the article Hedges fails to mention the 600,000 or so
Serbs
driven out of Croatia during the first half of the decade. An oversight.
Most of these people live as destitute refugees in Serbia.
Take a look at the pictures I've posted below and then we'll return to
Zimmerman and see how he offers criticisms which whitewash Croatia's
terrorist purge of Serbs and government critics.
[Note: A picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Above is Ante Pavelic, Ustashi [Fascist-Clerical] leader of
World
War II Nazi Croatia shown with his Fascist flag `
[A second picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Here is the committee that ruled Croatia at the time Zimmerman
gave
his interview. Notice that the old Ustashi flag is above them, on the
left,
and the re-issue is on the right. The men are: General Josip Boljkovac;
General Martin Spegelj, who made the remark that "[The Serbian city of]
Knin
must be butchered...including children in the cradle;" Stipe Mesic, whom
the
European Community imposed on Yugoslavia as its last President. (Though
Mesic
was part of Franjo Tudjman's fascist machine, he has been recycled as
the
much hailed "liberal" President of Croatia. His uncle was SS Officer
Marko
Mesic) and General Franjo Tudjman, then President of neo-fascist
Croatia.
Tudjman's book 'Wasteland' suggested that Jews, not the Ustashi,
slaughtered
the Serbs at the Jasenovac concentration camp complex.
In 1943 Tito, head of the Yugoslav partisans, proclaimed an unusual
policy:
any Croatian Ustashi (Fascist) officer who came over to the Partisan
side
would keep his rank. Seeing that Italy had crumbled and that their
beloved
Nazi Germany was destined to lose, large numbers of Ustashi made the
switch
to the Partisans between 1943 and 1945, thus joining the winning side.
There
is evidence that Franjo Tudjman forged papers, making it appear that he
had
been an anti-fascist during the war, when in fact he was a fascist, from
a
fascist family.
Now back to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman: That is why it is difficult to be overtly critical. But as
you
will soon become a universally recognized state, it seems that the
issues of
free press, political opposition and minority rights will come under
closer
scrutiny than they have been until now. War can be an excuse for
limiting the
freedom of expression, though I personally think it is hard to find
circumstances that would justify such actions. Once the war is over,
that
excuse will no longer exist, and it will be very important for Croatia
to
re-examine all its standards against the international and European
principles and then firmly adhere to them. Allow me to mention two
examples
where I was disappointed. It seems that a certain number of Serbs living
in
Zagreb and Croatia are leaving the city and the country, including those
who
have advocated moderate policies and were not nationalists. They could
be a
significant part of Croatian democracy, and if they are leaving due to
intolerance I hope that will soon be overcome. The other case has
already
been solved, but I mention it because it was very important both to me
and to
Cyrus Vance. It regards the siege of the barracks, when the families of
JNA
soldiers were treated in an unfair manner. But personally, I have full
confidence that the Croatian democracy will grow and expand. The United
States has a very positive opinion about the current developments.
Jared comments: So after the fascist regime has done its job - driven
out the
Serbs and intimidated pro-Yugoslav forces - it will have to adopt a
slicker
appearance so as to fit the look of European 'democracies.' But as for
1992:
"The United States has a very positive opinion about the current
developments." That says it all.
DANAS: You mentioned Mr. Cyrus Vance. He was a US Secretary of State, so
some
claim he is only the extended arm of Washington right now.
Zimmerman: He is, of course, a representative of the UN
Secretary-General,
but also a very respectable American and a former official of the
American
government, which I think all the leaders of the Republics that he had
met
understand very well. This does not sound like a bad thing to me.
DANAS: Some sort of dual guarantee?
Zimmerman: I wouldn’t use that term, but I would say that the US
government
completely supports everything Vance does on behalf of the UN. The
Yugoslav
crisis is a great challenge for the UN. If the peacekeepers come – and
we
hope they will – that would be the largest endeavor the UN have ever
undertaken. I don’t even have to mention the challenges and complexities
they
will face. Let us hope this endeavor will be successful, but in order
for
that to happen, all sides must honor their obligations.
***
(1) The invasion of Serbian Krajina by Greg Elich at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/elich/krajina.html
(2) Kosovo Before 1989 - What Really Happened? at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/tika.htm
(3) 1980's news stories about Kosovo at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/benworks/1980news.html
(4) The 'NY Times' article on Croatia is posted after the fund-raising
appeal.
If you find emperors-clothes useful, we can use your help...
All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Right now we are
behind
on phone bills (we use the phone for interviews and editorial meetings)
and
for Lexis, the wonderful Internet research tool. Any donation will help
with
these expenses. To use our secure server, please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html. Or you can mail a check to
Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. Thanks.
To browse articles from Emperors-Clothes.com, click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com and scroll down the page
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Intervista all'ambasciatore statunitense Warren Zimmerman
sul giornale croato "Danas", 12 gennaio 1992
The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm
The URL for printable version is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing2.htm
NOTHING IS FOREVER
U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmerman's interview, Jan. 12, 1992, in the
Croatian
daily 'Danas' ('Today')
Translated by www.emperors-clothes.com (6-1-00)
"We are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states
peacefully." (Warren Zimmerman, US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Jan., 1992)
The following interview is important. Many have argued that the U.S.
opposed
the breakup of Yugoslavia. Warren Zimmerman was US Ambassador to
Yugoslavia
during the key period, when Slovenia and Croatia were fighting to
secede. In
this interview he makes the real U.S. position quite clear.
A week before the interview a key event occurred. Europe recognized
secessionist Croatia and Slovenia as independent states. Balkans scholar
Raju
Thomas refers to this as "a new method of aggression: Diplomatic
Recognition."
"Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
state
[Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed since
December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition policy
proved
to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing sovereign
independent
states. When several rich and powerful states decide to take a sovereign
independent state apart through the policy of recognition, how is this
state
supposed to defend itself? There can be no deterrence or defense against
this
form of destruction." (Raju Thomas, "Nationalism, Secession and
Conflict:
Legacies from the Former Yugoslavia.")
The U.S. did not immediately endorse the European move. Does this mean
the
U.S. opposed secession? I think the U.S. policy was two-faced. The U.S.
government paid lip service to peaceful solutions and withheld
recognition of
Slovenia and Croatia, but at the same time, US officials and covert
agencies
worked to dismember Yugoslavia in a manner aimed at producing a Bosnian
nation-state run by Islamic Fundamentalist proxies under the thumb of
the US.
Zimmerman's interview in 'Danas' supports this view. Is the interview
accurate? If an Ambassador is seriously misquoted he would respond in
order
to correct the record; but Zimmerman never denied or corrected any part
of
the interview. There is no known reason to question its accuracy.
Moreover, subsequent US actions dovetail with the views expressed here.
For
example, consider this from Zimmerman:
"It appears to us that he [Bosnian Islamic Fundamentalist leader
Izetbegovic]
needs help in his effort to resist the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
and I
believe it would be tragic if someone from the Croatian side would try
cooperating with Serbia in the dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
Later, when the Bosnian Islamist leader Izetbegovic signed an agreement
with
Croatian and Serbian leaders to peacefully partition Bosnia, Zimmerman
met
with Izetbegovic and 'helped' by persuading him to renege on the deal
and
demand instead a unitary Bosnian state under Islamist control.
Izetbegovic
did renege, as Zimmerman asked, and this launched the Bosnian civil war.
It is important to remember when reading this interview that Zimmerman
was
speaking for the most world's only Superpower. Whatever Zimmerman said
would
be read carefully by all sides. He used the interview to encourage
Croatian
chauvinism, Kosovo Albanian secessionism and Islamic Fundamentalism, the
very
forces that Nazi Germany relied on in Yugoslavia in World War II.
Zimmerman said he was against destabilization but talk is cheap and
every
diplomat knew that a united Yugoslavia was the key to stability in the
Balkans. He said pretty things about peace but he unleashed the forces
of war.
Here's the interview.
'DANAS', 21 January 1992
NOTHING IS FOREVER
An Interview with Warren Zimmerman
Zimmerman: First of all, I have to point out that the US and the
American
people exceptionally appreciate the Croatian people and sympathize with
you
for all you have been through in the past few months. We know you have
been a
victim of a Serbian and Army aggression, and in that situation you
reacted
with great courage and dignity. I am not saying this as a compliment to
the
fighting abilities of Croatia - though they are considerable - but I
wish to
point out that a great deal of restraint was demanded of Croatia. I
refer to
the lifting of the siege of military barracks, which was in our opinion
one
of the keys to the possibility of a stable peace. This also goes for
honoring
the cease-fires, which is always a critical issue. I would also point
out the
agreement to the UN peace plan, which all the sides have accepted. In
all
these matters, the people and government of Croatia showed its
extraordinary
worth.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's reference to the secessionists' "restraint"
is
false. While pretending to observe a cease fire, the secessionists
provoked
and attacked Yugoslav troops in their barracks. Zimmerman lies
throughout the
interview. His words are best read not as honest reporting but as
evidence of
US intentions.
DANAS: Still, everyone wonders why the recognition has been delayed?
Zimmerman: I have to admit that at this moment the recognition of
Croatia is
not on our agenda. But this does not mean that this temporary American
approach will be around forever. We have always tried to approach
recognition
in a way that would contribute most to a permanent peace, and that same
approach has been taken by Cyrus Vance and Lord Carrington.
Jared comments: Obviously he is promising US recognition - just not yet.
DANAS: What does that mean in terms of time?
Zimmerman: I cannot tell you the exact date. But that is certainly
something
to be kept in mind, and something we are thinking of, but we are also
always
wondering what kind of benefit that would bring Croatia while the war is
still going on and while Croatia is still being occupied by enemy
troops. We
thought the best way for the JNA [Yugoslav Army] to leave Croatia was
the one
proposed by the UN, as it specifically states that the JNA must leave
Croatia. We also believe that we can do the most to make this plan work
is if
we keep the possibility to pressure Serbia, Serbian and JNA leadership
as
much as possible. We are doing that decisively, and I believe we are in
a
much better position to do that now, as we have not recognized Croatia
yet.
That way, we have preserved authority and credibility with Serbia and
the
Army that we would not have if we had followed Germany and recognized
Croatia. I believe what we are doing is beneficial to achieving true
Croatian
independence.
Jared comments: The US was withholding formal recognition not out of a
desire
to hold Yugoslavia together but out of a desire to destroy it in the
most
efficient and profitable way.
DANAS: So you wish to preserve your influence?
Zimmerman: Yes, but I also want to add that this does not mean in any
way
that Serbia or the JNA have any right of veto in the American
recognition
policy. This is not the case.
DANAS: Many claim that you generally support Europe, but at the same
time
aren't too confident about the European policy?
Zimmerman: I wouldn't say so. I know that Lord Carrington believes that
recognition of Yugoslav republics that have requested it could be
premature
in these circumstances. We have tried to clear a path that I believe
could
lead to the result you want, which is a truly independent Croatia, free
of
occupation and enemy forces.
Jared's comments: Zimmerman refers to the Army of Yugoslavia, a country
to
whom he was U.S. Ambassador, a country which included Croatia, as an
enemy
force. Amazing.
The "enemy" Army did not invade Croatia. It was present in Croatia just
as it
was present in other parts of Yugoslavia. It was just as illegal for
Croatia
to secede from Yugoslavia as it was for the southern states to secede
from
the U.S. 140 years ago. The JNA would have been justified in waging
total
war, just as President Abraham Lincoln waged total war; but the JNA did
not.
Zimmerman: We very decisively told the Serbian and Army leadership that
they
have to honor the obligations they accepted and completely leave
Croatia. We
also said - and I think we have been able to do it with more authority
since
we have not recognized Croatia - that the recognition of Croatia by
European
countries cannot be the reason for Serbia or the Army to try reversing
Croatia's independence or imposing solutions on Croatia by force.
DANAS: This is maybe a personal question. You are the American
Ambassador,
but it is hard to say which country you are the Ambassador to. Does
Yugoslavia still exist?
Zimmerman: That is a very good question, and a question that is very
hard to
answer. We are now precisely in that situation where a world is dying
and
another, different world is struggling to be born. In other words, it is
a
transition and as I said many times before, our main concern in it is
peace.
While these changes are going on, our foremost task is to contribute
that
they happen in a peaceful, rather than violent, environment.
Jared comments: As subsequent events demonstrated, 'Peace' meant the US
and
its proxy forces could do whatever they liked but the Yugoslav Army was
not
allowed to fight back.
Zimmerman: It is inevitable that these changes are accompanied with
uncertainties. I am an Ambassador accredited with the government of
Yugoslavia. But at the same time, it is completely clear that we do not
recognize Branko Kostic, who usurped the right to speak on behalf of the
Yugoslav Presidency. Since he made that attempt I have not had any
contacts
with him, nor do I intend to ever contact him. Most of the duties I
perform
in Belgrade and Yugoslavia are reduced to relations with the Republics,
which
my government considers extremely useful. There are many gray areas from
a
legal standpoint, but this is natural in times of transition.
DANAS: Are you encountering the same difficulties while meeting with the
military leaders?
Zimmerman: I recently met with General Adzic, and I met with General
Kadijevic right before he resigned. I believe it is exceptionally
important
to maintain contact with the Yugoslav military leadership, as they have
to
know our position. And our position is clear: we believe that the Army
is
primarily responsible for the war in Croatia.
Hence they have an enormous obligation to honor the UN peace plan, and
to
show restraint in Croatia. And in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well, which is
turning into a dangerous place. If we weren’t talking to them, we would
not
be able to tell them all these things.
DANAS: Many unconfirmed stories indicate that you prevented total war on
several occasions, using this type of influence?
Zimmerman: There is exaggeration in that. But I can say that the US has
always used the measure of influence it has to promote peace, not war.
That
is why I say that we are most concerned with the possibility of a war
breaking out in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We think it would be a horrible
tragedy
which could have consequences on the situation in Croatia, which at the
present time looks promising.
DANAS: Does that mean you support Izetbegovic’s plan?
Zimmerman: Let me try to elaborate on our policy towards
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We firmly believe that the territorial integrity of every republic must
be
preserved, and we clearly said to the Serbian government and the Army
leadership that we will never recognize any conquest in Croatia. Equally
important is the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is
most
threatened at this moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is
attempting
to tear away a piece of it. We consider that extremely dangerous, and we
said
so to the Army and the Serbian leadership.
Jared comments: Note how Zimmerman places matters upside down.
He speaks of maintaining the integrity of 'Bosnia' as if it were a
national
entity. But historically a country called 'Bosnia' never existed. An
administrative unit called 'Bosnia' (similar to Rhode Island or South
Dakota)
was created by the Tito government. That's it.
With this in mind, consider his statement that the US supports "the
territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is most threatened at
this
moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is attempting to tear away
a
piece of it."
In fact, the Islamic Fundamentalist forces in Bosnia were trying to tear
a
piece away from a real nation, recognized for 70 years - Yugoslavia.
This
violated international law. The Islamists wanted to justify their
secession
(that is, theft of territory) by holding a referendum. The Serbs
boycotted
the referendum. The Islamists held it anyway, and won; but this violated
the
Yugoslav constitution which required the approval of the three major
ethnic
groups before extreme action could be taken. Moreover the secessionist
movement only existed based on foreign intrigue, personified by Mr.
Zimmerman. The Islamists would never have dared to push for secession
without
the promise of outside (U.S.) help and in practice Mr. Zimmerman prodded
Islamist leader Izetbegovic into starting the Bosnian civil war.
The Bosnian Serbs had had grim experience with Islamic Fundamentalism
during
W.W. II. Islamic Fundamentalists were important supporters of the Nazis
in
Bosnia. They formed their own SS Division. They helped slaughter
hundreds of
thousands of Serbs. The Islamist leader Elija Izetbegovic was a pro-Nazi
Islamic Fundamentalist youth organizer during the War.
Knowing the horror that would follow if foreign-backed Islamists once
again
ruled Bosnia, the local Serbs wanted to stay with Yugoslavia. These
Serbs,
mainly farmers, owned the majority of land in Bosnia. The Serbs wanted
to
make sure that if Bosnian Islamists seceded the Serbs would not be
forced to
live under their rule.
Zimmerman: As for Mr. Izetbegovic, we heard that some call him a Muslim
fundamentalist. We know what fundamentalism really does, as we were its
victims in Iran. That is why we do not believe that Izetbegovic is some
sort
of fundamentalist. Actually, it seems like he is a moderate politician
who is
trying to do the best in a difficult situation.
Jared's comments:The reasoning here is charmingly ostrich-like: Proof by
Rejection of Negative Consequence. 1) Fundamentalists are terrible. 2)
It
would be terrible if Izetbegovic were a fundamentalist. 3) Therefore
Izetbegovic is not a fundamentalist.
Fortunately Izetbegovic wrote a book about his beliefs. It is called
"The
Islamic Declaration" ("Islamska deklaracija"). Here's an excerpt:
"... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the
incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace
or
coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non-Islamic societies and
political institutions. ... Islam clearly excludes the right and
possibility
of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is
no
question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an
expression
and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..." (p. 22)
It is ironic that Zimmerman uses Iran as the example of what Izetbegovic
is
not. Actually, Izetbegovic was especially fond of the Iranian
Fundamentalists. Moreover, the US encouraged Iran to smuggle arms and
terrorist trainers into Bosnia during the fighting, despite an embargo
on
importing arms. When challenged about this at a Congressional hearing,
Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith confirmed that the US had indeed
approved the shipments.
Zimmerman: It appears to us that he needs help in his effort to resist
the
partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I believe it would be tragic if
someone
from the Croatian side would try cooperating with Serbia in the
dismemberment
of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That would mean that Croatia is destroying the
very
principle on the basis of which it won international support for its
struggle.
DANAS: There are some very clear desires to that extent in Croatia.
Zimmerman: I read some hints to that effect in the Croatian press, so I
have
to say that the dismemberment of Bosnia – no matter who does it – cannot
win
the support of the United States. We would consider that a policy of
destabilization and a violation of international principles that could
lead
to very unpleasant consequences in our relations.
Jared's comments:This is Theater of the Absurd. International law says
nothing about alteration of borders within a state. It only forbids the
destabilization inherent in altering national boundaries - which is
precisely
what Zimmerman is supporting by insisting on the unimpeded creation of a
new
state of Bosnia.
Zimmerman: I believe, therefore, that if there is a tendency in Croatia
to
team up with Serbia in a break-up of Bosnia, that tendency must be
overcome.
DANAS: American foreign policy is often based on two interlocking
principles
– a carrot and a stick. What would be a carrot and what would be the
stick in
this situation?
Zimmerman: That is a good question, and I will try to give a very
specific
answer in regard to the war in Croatia. When the war is over and when
Croatia
restores its full sovereignty upon the Army’s withdrawal, that carrot
and
that stick have to exist for the other side as well.
Jared comments: This is one of the best examples of the Orwellian
rewriting
of reality, a special feature of the New World Order of which Zimmerman
was a
key architect. Croatia had 'full sovereignty' only one time in history:
that
was as the (Fascist-Clerical) Independent State of Croatia during the
German
occupation of Yugoslavia.
Zimmerman: The stick would be that the United States or any other
Western
country - to the best of my knowledge – will never recognize any
violation of
Croatia’s territorial integrity. In other words, the Croatian borders
will
remain as they were before the war, there will be no changes of borders
by
conquest. That stick would also be what I mentioned a moment ago. No one
will
support any violent re-establishment of Yugoslavia.
Jared comments: Does this sound like the man is opposing the breakup of
Yugoslavia?
DANAS: Any Yugoslavia?
Zimmerman: Any kind of Yugoslavia.
DANAS: Even the smallest one?
Zimmerman: We told Serbia and the Army clearly that we will not
recognize
Serbia as Yugoslavia’s successor, that we will not recognize any
so-called
Yugoslav government that is in fact just another Serb government.
That is why I do not wish to have any contact with Mr. Kostic, and why
the
American government challenged the credentials of the Yugoslav
delegation a
few days ago at the OSCE conference in Prague. But allow me to finish my
previous answer about sticks. Carrots are important, too, they form a
part of
this reality. There are some problems with the rights of the Serb
population
in Croatia. We do not think the way Serbia and the Army approached those
issues was justified, they went about it in a completely wrong way. But
the
problem exists and I think that Croatia, if it wants a stable peace,
should
be ready to grant a significant political autonomy to the Serb areas in
Croatia. We welcome as a good sign the fact that the Croatian assembly
passed
the Minority Law, which is a great step along that road. I hope that
Croatian
government will continue being so flexible, as it seems to me that a
maximum
degree of political autonomy on the local level in Serb-inhabited areas
will
be necessary. This is already a part of the UN peace plan on a
provisional
basis, as well as Lord Carrington’s plan, which counts on a longer time
frame. We think that every Serb leadership needs to be able to say that
Serb
rights in Croatia are completely protected with international
guarantees.
That would be in the interest of Croatia as well, as it would take a
significant problem off the agenda.
Jared comments: A number of points about this.
First, as we shall see below, the Croatian regime had launched a massive
campaign of terror against Serbian residents. Zimmerman is suggesting
that
Serbia be induced to accept the breakup of Yugoslavia by dangling the
carrot
of less violence towards Serbs in Croatia.
Second, Zimmerman avoids a discussion of the actual, day to day terror
that
was being directed against Serbs in Croatia. Instead he expresses
concern and
wishes and hopes for better treatment. The value of such US expressions
of
concern became clear three years later when the US planned, led and
provided
air cover for the eviction, carried out by the Croatian Army, of over
250,000
Serbs, mainly farmers, from the Krajina, which was claimed by Croatia.
This
was the worst act of genocide in Europe since W.W.II.
To get an idea of the anti-Serb hatred whipped up by the Croatian
government
throughout this period, read the following excerpt from a speech
delivered by
Croatian President Tudjman after the anti-Serb campaign culminated in
the
violent eviction of the Serbian population of the Krajina section.
Here's
Tudjman:
"There can be no return to the past, to the times when [Serbs] were
spreading
cancer in the heart of Croatia, a cancer that was destroying the
Croatian
national being." He [that is, Tudjman] then went on to speak of the
"ignominious disappearance" of the Serbs from Krajina "so it is as if
they
have never lived here... They didn't even have time to take with them
their
filthy money or their filthy underwear!" (From 'The invasion of Serbian
Krajina' by Greg Elich)
DANAS: Washington used to firmly advocate human rights in Kosovo, but
now
there is only mention of Croatia.
Jared comments: This is hyperbole. Washington's real concern about
Croatia
was that it not work against the Islamists in Bosnia. Indeed, Washington
hired the MPRI, a semi-private military outfit made up of 'retired'
officers
and CIA types to train the Croatian army which continued to be used
primarily
against Serbian civilians.
Zimmerman: I am glad you asked that question, so I can clarify things.
The
violation of rights of Albanians in Kosovo in my opinion is the worst
violation of human rights, and at this moment, there is none worse in
Europe.
It was somewhat peaceful in Kosovo last year, but the basic colonial
nature
of Serbian control has not changed. We have not lost interest in that
issue,
and we will not lose interest until it is solved. I cannot imagine a
final
political solution coming out of The Hague and Brussels that would only
deal
with Croatia. It has to encompass the rights of everyone; thus also the
problems in Kosovo.
Jared comments: Zimmerman was the Ambassador to Yugoslavia. Coming from
him,
this is a clear statement of support for Kosovo secessionism. Why?
Because a)
there was a strong secessionist movement in Kosovo at the time; b)
international law, expressed the Helsinki Accords, forbade the redrawing
of
national borders. However, international law did allow for
self-determination
for colonies. So by calling Kosovo a colony Zimmerman was making a
sneaky
argument for secession.
In fact, Zimmerman's statement is nonsense.
First, Albanians were not oppressed in Yugoslavia. Ethnic Albanian
unrest was
based on beliefs: they wanted to recreate the World War II entity,
Greater
Albania, and they wanted Kosovo to be Serb-and-"Gypsy"-free. In this
sense
their attitude had much in common with some whites in the segregationist
south. Many news articles during the 1980s report that it was Serbs, not
Albanians, who were oppressed in pre-1989 Kosovo. (2)
Colonialism means exploitation: the Colony is organized to serve the
needs of
the Imperial Power. Thus in the African colonies, railroad lines were
built
fanning out from coastal ports so that raw materials could easily be
taken
out of the country. Everything is best in the Imperial country.
Everything is
worst in the Colony.
This was dramatically not the case in Kosovo; Kosovo was poor, but not
due to
exploitation. As engineers Tika Jankovic and Petar Makara point out, the
engineering school in Pristina (Kosovo) had the finest modern equipment,
whereas the engineering school in Belgrade (inner Serbia) had to make do
with
pre-World War II equipment as late as the 1970s. (3)
Such anecdotal evidence is supported by the NY Times. The following was
written in 1984, before the Times adopted an anti-Serbian policy:
"Yugoslavia's Albanians: Poor, Proud and Prolific
By Michael T. Kaufman
..."The thrust toward republic status, for example, is in large measure
motivated by the clause in the Yugoslav Constitution that technically
permits
any republic to secede.
"As explained by a knot of [Albanian] students in Pristina, this right
to
withdraw could pave way for creating a greater Albania, linking Kosovo
with
the present Albania... with the capital shifting from Tirana to
Pristina...
"The students had no answers as to how such a nation could support
itself...
"[U]nder the complicated transfer arrangement, Kosovo receives
70 percent of its budget from the richer components of the Yugoslav
union...." ('New York Times', October 5, 1984)
DANAS: Croatia and Slovenia offered a year ago the confederacy solution
akin
to what Izetbegovic is proposing today. But the clock cannot be turned
back.
Zimmerman: Obviously, it is too late for that now. We are aiming for a
dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states peacefully, and when
any
new union is constructed – if it is constructed – it would have to be
founded
on sovereign decisions. In other words, it has to be built from the
bottom
up, rather than from top to the bottom.
DANAS: All Croatian politicians agree that it is necessary first to
secure
independence and sovereignty, and only then decide on future links.
Zimmerman: I recall the words of Pierre Lavalle, prime minister of the
Vichy
government who made a tremendous mistake by collaborating with the
Germans
but still said something very wise: "Governments come and go, but the
geography is eternal. France will forever remain Germany’s neighbor."
Croatia
will remain a neighbor of Serbia, and I hope it will be possible to soon
normalize the relations that geography makes inevitable.
DANAS: De Gaulle thought otherwise. Many were surprised by the news that
you
spent the New Year’s eve at a peace demonstration with the Serbian
opposition. Some said immediately that this is the sign that both sides
– the
UN and the US – want a different Serbia and different Serbian leaders.
Zimmerman: I went to this vigil to show our strong support to cessation
of
hostilities, and I think Mr. Vance had the same reasons. The peace
movement
in Serbia is a sort of an opposition. It does not accept war. It opposes
the
government responsible for that war. We support them in their demands
for
peace. We consider it especially important – not only in Serbia - that
the
political opposition is free to act. But in Serbia, this is not the
case.
Opposition leader Vuk Draskovic was just indicted for some things that
happened at the March 9 demonstrations last year. The media, especially
television, are hostile to all opponents of the government, and that
will
have to change if Serbia has any aspirations towards democracy. On that
occasion, we did not support any specific party [except for being
against the
one chosen by the people – PM] but we advocated democratic norms and
values,
values of peace and free press.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's support for Vuk Draskovic is interesting.
Before
the Croatian and Slovenian secession, Draskovic was a Tarzan Nationalist
- a
real chest beater and it was in this guise that he opposed Milosevich
who was
for the continuation of Yugoslavia. But then Draskovic advocated a
policy of
non-resistance when the Yugoslav Army was attacked in its barracks, and
when
Serbs were attacked as well.
Note also how Zimmerman uses his continued presence in Belgrade: he
encourages the breakup of Yugoslavia and threatens Belgrade if it tries
to
stop it.
DANAS: Your statements have been frequently attacked in Belgrade and in
Croatia...
Zimmerman: And Slovenia and Montenegro...
DANAS: But which one of your critical remarks would you say again in
regard
to Croatia?
Zimmerman: Croatia is a democratic state, but it is a young democracy
tempted
by war.
Jared comments: This is amazing.
This new 'democratic' state was a conscious imitation of the Independent
State of Croatia, notorious in World War II for creating Jasenovac, the
first
death camp, in which about a million Serbs, 'Gypsies', Jews and
antifascists
were killed using the most horrifying methods.
The new Independent State of Croatia, under Franjo Tudjman, a holocaust
denier, brought back the Fascist Croatian flag, the currency, the army
uniforms, and the straight-arm salute. It renamed streets after leaders
of
the Ustashi fascists; its constitution defined Croatia as a racial state
(a
state of ethnic Croats, not, like Serbia, a state of all its citizens,
regardless of ethnicity.)
The 'democratic elections' took place in an atmosphere of terror and
with
vast sums pumped in from Germany and other Western sources and from
pro-fascist Croatians abroad. The HOS (Croatian Military Group) harassed
and
killed Serbs and opponents of the regime. The method of identification
was
straightforward. First, everyone was ordered to sign a pledge of
allegiance.
Serbs and antifascists who refused to sign this pledge to the
resurrected
Ustashi state were first fired from their jobs, then fired at.
The loyalty oath did not ferret out all the undesirable elements. So the
HOS
ordered everyone to display the Croatian (fascist) checkerboard flag in
their
window. This flag is the Croatian equivalent of the swastika. Then the
HOS
went from street to street and harassed or beat up or killed those
(whether
Serbian or Croatian) who refused to display the flag.
The HOS dynamited the homes of undesirables, often with the people
inside.
Jews lived in fear. Tens of thousands of Serbs were driven out - perhaps
300,000 even before the forced exodus from the Krajina in 1995.
By referring to this terrorized territory as a "young democratic state"
Zimmerman made perfectly clear that he approved of the HOS actions. His
mild
rebukes were cosmetic: made for the sake of appearance.
The American media suppressed the the news about Croatia. Most people
never
learned there was an anti-Serbian terror.
There were a few exceptions to the press blackout. One was an article in
the
'New York Times' which I have posted after the interview. It appeared
rather
late, in 1997, well after Croatia had finished purging 600,000 Serbs.
The
article is a bit odd. The writer, Chris Hedges, suggests that fascists
were
just then becoming powerful in Croatia, whereas this had actually
happened
years earlier, in 1990, '91 and '92. Perhaps Hedges wrote the article in
the
early 1990s and the Times editors held it back until the fascists had
completed their Western-assigned tasks: declaring independence and
driving
out the Serbs. In the article Hedges fails to mention the 600,000 or so
Serbs
driven out of Croatia during the first half of the decade. An oversight.
Most of these people live as destitute refugees in Serbia.
Take a look at the pictures I've posted below and then we'll return to
Zimmerman and see how he offers criticisms which whitewash Croatia's
terrorist purge of Serbs and government critics.
[Note: A picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Above is Ante Pavelic, Ustashi [Fascist-Clerical] leader of
World
War II Nazi Croatia shown with his Fascist flag `
[A second picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Here is the committee that ruled Croatia at the time Zimmerman
gave
his interview. Notice that the old Ustashi flag is above them, on the
left,
and the re-issue is on the right. The men are: General Josip Boljkovac;
General Martin Spegelj, who made the remark that "[The Serbian city of]
Knin
must be butchered...including children in the cradle;" Stipe Mesic, whom
the
European Community imposed on Yugoslavia as its last President. (Though
Mesic
was part of Franjo Tudjman's fascist machine, he has been recycled as
the
much hailed "liberal" President of Croatia. His uncle was SS Officer
Marko
Mesic) and General Franjo Tudjman, then President of neo-fascist
Croatia.
Tudjman's book 'Wasteland' suggested that Jews, not the Ustashi,
slaughtered
the Serbs at the Jasenovac concentration camp complex.
In 1943 Tito, head of the Yugoslav partisans, proclaimed an unusual
policy:
any Croatian Ustashi (Fascist) officer who came over to the Partisan
side
would keep his rank. Seeing that Italy had crumbled and that their
beloved
Nazi Germany was destined to lose, large numbers of Ustashi made the
switch
to the Partisans between 1943 and 1945, thus joining the winning side.
There
is evidence that Franjo Tudjman forged papers, making it appear that he
had
been an anti-fascist during the war, when in fact he was a fascist, from
a
fascist family.
Now back to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman: That is why it is difficult to be overtly critical. But as
you
will soon become a universally recognized state, it seems that the
issues of
free press, political opposition and minority rights will come under
closer
scrutiny than they have been until now. War can be an excuse for
limiting the
freedom of expression, though I personally think it is hard to find
circumstances that would justify such actions. Once the war is over,
that
excuse will no longer exist, and it will be very important for Croatia
to
re-examine all its standards against the international and European
principles and then firmly adhere to them. Allow me to mention two
examples
where I was disappointed. It seems that a certain number of Serbs living
in
Zagreb and Croatia are leaving the city and the country, including those
who
have advocated moderate policies and were not nationalists. They could
be a
significant part of Croatian democracy, and if they are leaving due to
intolerance I hope that will soon be overcome. The other case has
already
been solved, but I mention it because it was very important both to me
and to
Cyrus Vance. It regards the siege of the barracks, when the families of
JNA
soldiers were treated in an unfair manner. But personally, I have full
confidence that the Croatian democracy will grow and expand. The United
States has a very positive opinion about the current developments.
Jared comments: So after the fascist regime has done its job - driven
out the
Serbs and intimidated pro-Yugoslav forces - it will have to adopt a
slicker
appearance so as to fit the look of European 'democracies.' But as for
1992:
"The United States has a very positive opinion about the current
developments." That says it all.
DANAS: You mentioned Mr. Cyrus Vance. He was a US Secretary of State, so
some
claim he is only the extended arm of Washington right now.
Zimmerman: He is, of course, a representative of the UN
Secretary-General,
but also a very respectable American and a former official of the
American
government, which I think all the leaders of the Republics that he had
met
understand very well. This does not sound like a bad thing to me.
DANAS: Some sort of dual guarantee?
Zimmerman: I wouldn’t use that term, but I would say that the US
government
completely supports everything Vance does on behalf of the UN. The
Yugoslav
crisis is a great challenge for the UN. If the peacekeepers come – and
we
hope they will – that would be the largest endeavor the UN have ever
undertaken. I don’t even have to mention the challenges and complexities
they
will face. Let us hope this endeavor will be successful, but in order
for
that to happen, all sides must honor their obligations.
***
(1) The invasion of Serbian Krajina by Greg Elich at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/elich/krajina.html
(2) Kosovo Before 1989 - What Really Happened? at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/tika.htm
(3) 1980's news stories about Kosovo at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/benworks/1980news.html
(4) The 'NY Times' article on Croatia is posted after the fund-raising
appeal.
If you find emperors-clothes useful, we can use your help...
All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Right now we are
behind
on phone bills (we use the phone for interviews and editorial meetings)
and
for Lexis, the wonderful Internet research tool. Any donation will help
with
these expenses. To use our secure server, please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html. Or you can mail a check to
Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. Thanks.
To browse articles from Emperors-Clothes.com, click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com and scroll down the page
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------