The Slobodan Milosevic United Nations war crime tribunal is underway and the former Yugoslav leader is facing charges of genocide inBosnia, and other crimes against humanity in Kosovo and Croatia.
Butbefore you get all warm inside about how the world is doing its bestto honor those lost in genocide by refusing to look the other way anddoing its best to set things right, realize the Milosevic tribunalhas more to do with economics than justice.
I am in no way defending Milosevic or any of the actions of theformer Yugoslavia. I will not trivialize the plight of Muslims inBosnia, nor the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo by attempting to determinethe guilt or innocence of Milosevic. He may deserve to be on trial,but the real reason he is being prosecuted is not because he was theleader of a questionably evil empire, but because Milosevic andYugoslavia defied the power and authority of NATO.
Yugoslavia posed a serious threat to westernizing Central andEastern Europe, especially the Balkans. NATOknows that in order to thrive, Europe must be a unified capitalistunit, open to trade. NATO would never let Milosevic jeopardize thesuccess of the European Union. President Clinton even stated, “Ifwe’re going to have a strong relationship that includes our abilityto sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key. That’s whatthis Kosovo thing is all about.”
Another thing that escapes headline news, hidden behind bombingsand massacres, is the extensive mineral wealth of Kosovo. Accordingto www.iacenter.org, Kosovo contains the most valuable piece of realestate in the Balkans — the state-owned Trepca mining complex, whichis worth about $5 billion.
Defense stocks also rose significantly, and there was much wealthto be had in the rebuilding of the Balkans in a western mold. Thestrong financial gains of intervention suggest the genocide, or”ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and Kosovo, was a convenient excuse forNATO to act on behalf of their economic interests.
So where does the United States really stand in the effort tocease and commemorate genocide?
Wherever the money is.
A good example of how the United States lets economics determineits stance against genocide is the Armenian genocide of World War I– a genocide the United States does not publicly acknowledge.
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire led a massive genocideagainst people of Armenian descent. According to the ArmenianNational Institute, it is estimated that 1.5 million Armenians diedin this genocide.
The international community, after World War I, was outraged atthe genocide, and not only acknowledged it but sent aid to theArmenians and forced the Ottoman Empire to prosecute officers forcrimes against humanity.
But times have changed, and despite conclusive evidence of thisgenocide, the present-day U.N. Genocide Convention does notacknowledge its occurrence. Moreover, Turkey is very proactive inmaintaining the international state of denial.
In January 2001, French parliament voted to publicly recognize theArmenian Genocide, much to the dismay of Turkey. Turkey removed itsambassador from Paris in protest, and placed an embargo on France.This embargo against mutual military transactions with France waslater lifted. However, the incident proved Turkey’s resolve to coverup this blemish in its history.
U.S. legislation to recognize the Armenian genocide was struckdown because it would disrupt our bilateral ties to Turkey. Turkey isa major candidate for the European Union, is vital to the capitalistunification of Europe and significant to our economic security. Whyshould we endanger our economy to recognize the past?
Adolf Hitler once said, “I have placed my death-head formations inreadiness with orders to them to send to death mercilessly andwithout compassion, men, women and children of Polish derivation andlanguage. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of theArmenians?” Our denial of the Armenian genocide has alreadyencouraged another major genocide, yet we continue to dismiss thepast. Furthermore, our failure to acknowledge this genocide issilently condoning Turkey’s actions, telling them it’s OK to try anderase the past so long as they continue to produce and consume in acapitalist manner.
The Milosevic trial doesn’t mark a new international attitudedevoted to curbing and correcting genocide, nor is it a victory forhuman rights. It marks NATO’s devotion to the success of the EuropeanUnion.
Again, this does not necessarily make Milosevic a victim, nor doesit mean westernizing Europe is wrong. Just remember that when youread in The New York Times that Milosevic is a madman, there is awhole different faction of the world calling him a martyr framed bythe West.
NATO may be justified, but they are not demonstrating moralprinciples, rather, principles of economics.
–Joe Zarro is an undeclared sophomore.
–This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com.Anonymous letters will not be printed — include your full name,major and year in school.
