Bosnian War Crimes and the ICC

This is a follow-up to the article on Mladic and the ICC:

http://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2017/11/mladic-and-icc-hypocrisy.html

Even if we grant that the Serbs were guilty of the worst atrocities the whole war narrative smells fishy. Many of the Bosnian commanders were accused of war crimes and not a few of them were indicted. However charges were dismissed and most of the sentences were rather light. The other part of the whole 'innocent' Bosnia story that is completely left out of the mainstream narrative are the associations with al Qaeda.

The Bosnian Mujahideen who aren't even listed as belligerents on Wikipedia's main Bosnian War page nevertheless played a significant part in both the fighting and the war crimes. If you do a Control-F search for mujahideen it will bring up some of the other links. They were a paramilitary force attached to the official Bosnian Army. Such arrangements are not all that unusual. Many official armies have attached paramilitary units that do a lot of the dirty work that can later be plausibly denied. One thinks of Colombia for example. The US has too many proxy forces to list.

Although not too many nations can claim that al Qaeda was their unofficial paramilitary branch.

Why is this downplayed? It doesn't fit the NATO narrative regarding the course of the war. I don't think most people even understood why the Serbs and Croats living in Bosnia 'flipped out' when Bosnia declared independence in the spring of 1992. Irredentism played a part to be sure but there were also fears of security and what would happen to them under a government that was being flooded with Islamist influences. These fears were confirmed by the fall of 1992 when the fighters began to arrive and were formed into official units by the Bosnian army. Remember there was an Islamic revival going on throughout the 1990s. It stretched from Xinjiang to the Balkans and certainly affected Bosnia and all of the Balkans. The Afghan War and its Pan-Islamic army as well as the subsequent fall of the USSR unleashed a wave of Islamic revival. At the time the US had no problem with this. After all they had (in collaboration with Riyadh) all but encouraged it.

The US doesn't talk about this episode because they were at the very least partially collaborating with these elements as they were in the 1980s.  The US relationship with the Islamists began to suffer strain in Somalia but was by no means over by the mid-1990s. One is reminded of the relationship with Panama's Noriega. Once a strong US ally and collaborator, within a very brief time the relationship 'flipped' and he was declared an enemy. History of course had to be re-written. His connections with the School of the Americas, the Contra War and figures like Oliver North were forgotten.

The same thing happened with al Qaeda and the larger story of Islamic mujahideen. But during the Bosnian episode they were fighting a common cause with NATO-EU interests. In fact for them it was but the next phase of global struggle in the wake of Afghanistan.

The beheading videos which so horrified the world in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of AQI and ISIS, were already happening in the 1990s Balkans. But, for some reason they didn't get the coverage back then. I suppose someone could argue that in the days of pre-High Speed Internet they were not able to proliferate but I find such arguments wanting.

Even Wikipedia mentions that two of the 9/11 hijackers were Bosnian mujahideen. This is not to say they were from Bosnia but rather they went and fought in that war for Bosnia, against the Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. One Bosnian, Bilal Bosnic is interesting because while he was in good standing during the 1990s, by 2014 he was recruiting for ISIS. Now in prison, his sentence could be considered light by some estimates.

There is significant evidence that indicates Western intelligence agencies have been collaborating with the running of Islamists and arms networks out of Europe into the Middle East... Syria in particular. Bosnic either fell prey to official security services, and while he couldn't be exonerated was given a light sentence, or he may have gone too far in seeking to foment unrest in the Balkans, something both Washington and Berlin want to keep under wraps right now. They fear Balkan instability which is simmering unresolved just beneath the surface. Russia is doing what it can to work this angle and Turkey's place is at present... somewhat unclear. Despite their moves toward Moscow, the Balkans are but one of several areas in which their historical interests sharply divide.

All of these troubles are rooted in the Ottoman presence (and collapse) which extended for more than five centuries. The Bosniaks are of course Slavs who converted Islam during the Middle Ages. The Albanians represent the other significant ethnic group that converted to Islam in the wake of conquest. Though the Ottomans are long gone, the effects of their rule has not yet been fully addressed or reconciled. In fact it's probably not possible to put the broken pieces back together. Western leaders naively continue to hope that secularism will eventually allow the Balkans to calm down.

So while I think the Serbs behaved monstrously and I have no sympathy for figures like Mladic, Milosevic or Karadzic I also think the ICC is something of a travesty. This is only made possible by the deceptive and deliberately lopsided reporting of the news media and academic collaborators. There were massacres and ethnic cleansing on all sides and based on precedent I have no doubt that Bosniak massacres perpetrated against the Serbs and Croats have been downplayed. Downplayed to the extent the Serbs present? Probably not. Numbers are tricky. Just look at Jasenovac for example. Croats downplay the numbers and Serbs exaggerate them.

A case could be made that the Serbs behaviour at Srebrenica was a reaction to a series of massacres that had already taken place. The story of Naser Oric warrants investigation. Their (the Serbs) crime was that their reaction was disproportionate. Of course such arguments ring hollow when one views the stunning footage in the aftermath of Srebrenica. And yet the Serbs could argue that they had already endured a series of 'mini' Srebrenica's in the months leading up to that. Oric could argue that his attacks on the Serbs were a reaction to their attacks. Additionally the course of the war (it could be argued) demanded a radical move on the part of Serbia. It was clear the West was going to get involved.

At this point the reasons why the Serbs committed the massacre at Srebrenica could also be raised. Some see it as a desperate move on the part of the Serbs. Others think they were goaded into doing it as justification for Western involvement. While I don't believe the latter is true, such arguments cannot be simply dispensed with. There are historical precedents.

These arguments can go back and forth ad infinitum. From my perspective, they're all murderers. The Serbs are guilty as are the Bosnians who started the process of separation in the spring of 1992. Given the history and tensions of the region everyone had to know a bloodbath would ensue. It's so easy to take up the gun and call for separation but few count the cost. Those that would live by the sword had better be prepared to die by it.

The Serbs behaved barbarically and yet you can't help but be disgusted at the lopsided way in which the story is presented. It's too convenient to just label one side as 'the bad guys'. There are some clear cut cases in history but not that many. Most of the time there's more to the story.