Gerard Baudson: The New World Order And Yugoslavia
by Pierre Marie Gallois
The tragedy of the Balkans, for Gerard Baudson, was a great revelation: in spite of good intentions inspiring its promoters, "The New World Order" did not acquire that significance which was initially attributed to it. The wake of virulent nationalism, bombardments, massacres, famine, exodus, with over two million dead, for now... what a score!
What was expected was peace. After the profound division of the world and forty years of hostilities hardly contained, peace was to have been achieved. Instead, wars erupted, the trilogy of "petroleum conflicts": Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya, the insanity of African tribes, terrorism. There was hope to alleviate at least the unbalance between affluence of the ones and the poverty of the others, but the gap only widened. The advance towards democracy seemed inevitable, and although its principles prevailed, what we now see is the democracy perverted by technique of disinformation, indoctrination, the lot of the mighty. There was an obvious success of the market economy, but through the default of making it too readily accessible, it is now being questioned by those same ones who were expecting an improvement of their material life. The old world order, security for all but also austerity if not poverty for all, are now awakening the nostalgic feelings.
People are dying in Iraq, those helpless and poor, only to prevent petroleum of this country from being added to the petroleum of the other OPEC member-countries. After the thunder strike of Slovenes, with the engagement of the "international community", the Balkans became the powder cake of Europe and a region of great instability. Grozny is in ruins. An interior affair of the Community of Independent States, but the preservation of the Yugoslav unity was not an interior affair of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, at least not for the western democracies.
Gerard Baudson, from the very start is following the painful developments of the crisis in the Balkans, a pitiful manifestation of the "New World Order", so much differently anticipated and imagined. His previous works bear witness to his knowledge and pertinence of the reflections inspired by the determination of the Germans to dislocate Yugoslavia and particular efforts deployed by Washington, Bonn, Paris and London to create, defend and reinforce an Islamic state there where there never has been a state before, ignoring at the same time the Helsinki Document on the inviolability of international frontiers in Europe, by arbitrarily transforming the administrative boundaries into international frontiers. What a distortion of the writs so solemnly signed less than fifteen years ago! What encouragement to nationalism and religious intransigence condemned elsewhere! When it is convenient to foster them in order to respond to the expectations of the public opinion.
Today, the mental reservations inspiring the governments intervening in the Balkans are no longer a mystery. It is well known what material interests have inspired them. Just like the preceding one, the "New World Order" is still the one of the struggle for the growth of power. But in spite of despotism and sufferings of the cold war, the rivalry and opposition of the two antagonistic societies had at least the advantages of limiting their respective aggressiveness, each one fearing that its moves would be an advantage for the other side. This constraint no longer exists, and thus we witness an exasperating debauchery and exorbitant debase of political moral, if one can at all allow the association of these two words.
In this respect, let us highlight the new phenomenon which appeared without equivalent all along the Balkan hostilities: the complete discord between politicians on the one hand and the military on the other, on the interpretation of facts, the later ones being witnesses on the ground, and the former ones intent on justifying their designs, even by denying the reality itself, if need be.
Thus when Paris and Washington demanded the deployment of the air attacks on Serbian positions. General Jean Cot, who was the commander of the UNPROFOR from July 1993 to March 1994, denounced "the errors of the international politics in Bosnia, the question of application of air strikes, for the benefit of the OUN units or the population of the security zones... which have led, progressively, to a total impasse. Why? Undoubtedly there was a belief that it is possible to combine the NATO air strikes with the actions of the OUN troops on the ground. But, this was like marrying a rabbit to a carp... forgetting that the UNPROFOR, an improbable assembly of some forty contingents of heterogeneous nationals, is not a classic armed force...".
The same criticism of behavior of politicians was also voiced by the American General Charles Boyd in "The Herald Tribune" of August 10, 1995: "We, the Americans, we are saying that we want peace, but we have encouraged an escalation of war... all the factions in former Yugoslavia have pursued the same objective: to avoid the status of minority in Yugoslavia or in any other successor-state. The United States have supported all the ambitions, except one, that of the Bosnian Serbs... the view which the public has of this war comes from one side only: the side of the Bosnian Muslims, whose status of victims, was an instrument of protective struggle and building of self-esteem... Sarajevo, starved, destroyed and under siege is a precious instrument for the Government in Bonn... the violent death rate has dropped there in 1994 to 324 victims in that year according to the United Nations. This rate is comparable, per capita, to that of North America, and is lower than the one in Washington." Certainly the image that the public has of this war comes from one side only, warns General Boyd, former deputy commander of the American forces in Europe. This is also the view of President Carter. Since he is no longer holding any official function, it was possible for him to tell the truth. While visiting Zagreb and Sarajevo he also went to Pale in late December 1994 and stated for the press that "the American people was not informed... it knows only one version of the facts... the United Nations should very quickly lift the sanctions imposed on Serbia". Jimmy Carter thus became one of the few politicians to tell the truth about the Balkan tragedy.
At the beginning of that same year, General Briquemont, courageously outspoken, himself did not hesitate to tell the truth in spite of foreseeable sanctions: "...There are no good ones on the one side and bad ones on the other... the alliances are being made and unmade in the function of the balance of power in every region. As soon as one side: Serbian, Croat or Bosnian Muslim becomes too strong, the other two unite against it. There should be a stop put to anti-Serbism primarily communicated by some light-headed intellectuals...". General Briquemont preceded this statement by his famous apostrophe: "... When I hear Bernard-Henry Levy profess that a few aircraft will suffice to resolve the situation, it makes me mad. It is a serious matter when an intellectual starts taking himself for a military expert. It is even more serious when he parades himself in a city under siege, when he at random quotes General De Gaulle and when the inhabitants of Sarajevo start taking him for a messiah" (L' Express, February 3, 1994). The same general neither embellished his feelings inspired by the "humanitarian mission" assigned to his troops: "... Our mandate is to maintain peace... there is no peace, there is not even a peace treaty. The reality? It is three sides fighting each other and from 10 to 11,000 blue angels offering humanitarian assistance... It has become untenable".
Serbs are the aggressors, declare politicians wishing to bombard them. But General Morillon writes in his book "To Believe and To Dare" (published by B. Grasset): "...Both mobilization and the state of war have been decreed by President Izetbegovic. It is very easy for him to request the cease-fire in the areas where his position is difficult. If he really wants peace, let him publicly declare the end of war and laws which go with it. Let him give back freedom to the Serbian population which he is holding hostages... The Serbs have achieved their objective by assuring control over regions which belong to them because they are or where there a majority. They want peace and are ready for peace to make all concessions...".
In the same book, the following is also written: "Two French soldiers, Sergeant-Major Vaudet and Corporal Madot were killed at the airport gates... It is the snipers of the Bosnian (Muslim) army who are responsible for their death...Towns of Zvornik and more to the south Bratunac have welcomed the Serbian refugees who escaped in June in the face of what they say was a massacre, and which according to the confession of the Bosnian military themselves could be considered at least to be some form of mass executions. Every day in the mass graves victims of these actions are being discovered" (but it is understood and everywhere confirmed that the mass graves do not contain any other victims except Bosnian Muslims)."... During Christmas my residence was bombarded by mortar shells fired from the positions of the Bosnian Muslims... Relative calm (which reigned over Sarajevo since early November)... was brutally interrupted. It seems that this was done at the initiative of the Bosnian Muslim army", continued General Morillon.
Having proven his objectivity and independence in confronting the designs of politicians, by contradicting their claims, British General Michael Rose left his command post - the post of commander of the ' blue helmets' in Bosnia - to the satisfaction of both Washington and Bonn, and without any doubt to the satisfaction of Paris too. While submitting his report on the mission in former Yugoslavia to the Royal United Service Institute, General Michael Rose, re-established himself also, by telling the truth the way he had witnessed it on the ground: "...One of the principal aims of every warrior was to compromise our impartiality by forcing the UNPROFOR to take sides, and therefore it is not surprising that the weakest ones - meaning the Bosnian Muslims - resorted to the proceeds designed to incite the intervention of the OUN troops in their stead against Serbs in Bosnia... The recent developments in Gorazde and in Bihac are the examples of such proceeds, the forces of the Bosnian Muslim Government using the OUN security zones for launching attacks on Bosnian Serbs". Filmed within the television program Panorama, General Rose showed that the essential damages suffered in Gorazde, those attributed to Serbs by the British Prime Minister, the media and the information gathered by the American satellites, were in fact the work of the Muslim militia "committed over a year ago... when these militia were proceeding with the ethnic cleansing of this city, burning down the Serbian houses...". During the same meeting, continues the journalist who is reporting on the presentation by General Rose, the general also explained one mortar fire attributed to Serbs, but which was fired by the Bosnian Muslims: "...with the aid of a British radar, the Cymberline, which is elevating the trajectory of the fire, and General Rose submitted to President Izetbegovic the proof of this ruse and culpability of his troops... Izetbegovic claimed to be ignorant of this, but the fire ceased...".
Long before this event, General Lanxade, the then-chief of the General Headquarters of the Armies, revealed that the majority of the French soldiers, victims of the sniper fire, were killed by the Muslims. But they were also shooting at their own. "We were thinking that this is not possible, but now we are sure that this did happen", confided an officer to Mick O' Connorof, the New York Time Service, who continued:
"These shootings have killed hundreds of persons and the sights of civilians fallen on the pavement have contributed to the growth of support (by the international community) to the cause of the Bosnian government". This also allowed "the grand voices of the world conscience" to denounce Serbian "ambush sniper shooters" and to demand the NATO bombardment of their positions. The governments, in order to be in symbioses with a population so deceived, followed their demands. Or even asked for it in advance...
This was the case of the assassination of May 27,1992 (22 killed) in the bread-line in Vase Miskina Street in Sarajevo. Having at once accused the Serbian snipers of the deed, the United Nations decided to place Serbia and Montenegro under the economic embargo. Thousands of helpless persons (aged and children) and those poor died a premature death for the lack of care and because of under-nourishment. But General Mac Kenzie absolved Serbs: "...Our people were telling us", he writes in his book the "Peacekeeper", "that a certain number of facts seem very strange to them: the street was closed for traffic just before the explosion. After the bread-line was formed in front of the bakery, the media appeared, but were placed at some distance. The attack took place and the cameramen, already on the spot, only had to get closer... the majority of dead were Serbs...". The Canadian general was not fooled by the large enterprise of intoxication conducted by the Croats and Muslims. "While watching the television news broadcast (BBC, CNN), the impression is that Serbs are to be blamed a 100 percent. Some reports were focused on what we know", he also writes.
The same attitude of an anti-Serbian coalition appeared the next day after the tragedy on the Markale market-place where an explosion injured almost 300 victims, with 66 dead. No one took into any account the conclusions of the investigation commission and, at the demand from Quai d' Orsay the coercion measures against Serbs were decided upon before even the experts had a chance to meet, as if their reports had to be kept aside. A very strange behavior indeed. A Canadian Colonel, summing up the conclusions of the investigators, declared as follows: "There is no sufficient physical evidence to prove that one side rather than the other has fired this projectile". And on February 20th the "Journal du Dimanche" specified: "On the basis of the recorded telephone calls operated by the experts on the ground, the projectile could have well been fired from the Muslim lines". Josette Alia who was reporting on this matter for "Le Nouvel Observateur" of February 17-23, 1994, received the following statement from Mr. Juppe: "On Saturday, in the afternoon (the day of assassination), I gathered together my associates and we thought that we should demand the lifting of siege of Sarajevo, no matter what is the origin of the responsibility for the fire". Why should the siege of Sarajevo be lifted when it is well known that at that time Sarajevo was not an open city, that fighting was taking place there, and that it was full or armament, and in what quantities at that?
"I remember the first massacre at the central market place, the one that provoked the first bombardments by NATO", writes Jean Daniel over one year and a half later. "I must say this today (a bit late for an admission)... I heard successively Edouard Balladur, Francois Leotard, Alain Juppe and two generals with great responsibilities, but I can not betray their confidence, tell me that they are convinced that numerous French soldiers in the OUN troops, those injured or killed in Bosnia, have been afflicted by the Muslim snipers. And that even the projectile fired on the central market place was also fired by Muslims. But this would mean that they have made a massacre of their own! I observed with fright. Yes, answered the Prime Minister without hesitation, but it also prompted NATO to take up arms and proceed with air strikes. Balladur, just like Juppe thought that Izetbegovic could have been, on occasion, the one making provocations. Mitterrand himself went even further. He approved the reasoning of the Bosnian President that it was necessary to make provocations. Mr. Mitterrand, was he bothered at all by the provocations aimed at numerous French soldiers which will end up dead?"
With the accumulation of the testimonies on this terrible civil war one can perceive the designs of the two super-powers, the world one and the European one Their instrument was the greatest cynicism of them all - but a normal component of the political game - and a gigantic disinformation campaign of which not only the public opinion but also certain governments were the victims... but well agreeable victims, to be sure, because it was in their interest to bow to the will of those mightier than they.
But "The New World Order" has also some other and just as troubling aspects. With lucidity and courage, Gerard Baudson is depicting them on the pages that follow.
INTRODUCTION -- The Constraints of Hegemonism >>