Lift the Bosnia arms embargo!
Socialist Outlook1990sScanned print read by OCR, and not yet proofread: expect run-together words, dropped letters and, where a piece began partway down a page, a few lines of its neighbour. The printed page is the authority.
BIHAC is about to fall-to the Bosnian Serbs as we go to press. Serb heavy guns are pounding the centre of the town and there may be genocide in the area in the next few days.
Those who have argued that the Bosnian people can be protected against Serbian aggression by the UN or NATO have been proved wrong again.
Both the UN and NATO have been humiliated by the Serbs, and every contradiction in Western policy exploited and exposed. UN troops have even been taken hostage against air strikes.
In an outspoken attack on the shambles the new US Congress majority leader Robert Dole has referred to a "complete breakdown" of the NATO alliance, blaming the French and particularly the British for the fiasco.
Withdraw UN
Dole went on to demand the withdrawal of UN troops from Bosnia, and a lifting of the embargo on arms to the Bosnian "Get the UN soldiers out of the way. Pull 'em out," he said, implying that he favours use of air power against the Serbs.
The Bosnian army offensives of the previous month have been met with a Bosnian Serb counter attack which has all the advantages of tanks and heavy weapons which the Bosnians are denied.
It is clear that despite the so-called 'rift' between the Bosnian Serbs and the Milosevic government in Belgrade, Serbia is supplying everything the Bosnian Serbs need by the back door.
The only way the Bosnians are going to be effectively defended, and liberate any of the 70 per cent of Bosnia currently occupied by the Serbs, is if they are allowed to obtain the means to defend themselves which they have been denied over the two and a half years of the war.
The Bosnians have been refused arms, it should be remembered, by both the US and Europe, despite increasing US statements calling for the lifting of the embargo.
Socialist Outlook has always been completly opposed to Western military intervention by air or by ground troops. In the end they will partition and defeat Bosnia.
Any illusion that the United States is on the side of the Bosnian people is also dangerous.
While it is obviously true that Western policy is in tatters, and that the US is now calling for the lifting of the arms embargo - this does not put the USA on the side of the Bosnian people.
CROATIA
Bania • Bihac • Luka Tuzla Bos. a Petrovac BOSNIA Kupres Sarajevo Copale CROATIA Trovo 60 miles The US is not motivated by the interests of Bosnia, but pursuing its own globval objectives. Sometimes these interests may seem to coincide, but mostly they will not.
The policies of all Western powers, including the US, have one unifying factor: they all want to dismember Bosnia and effectively hand the Serbs a victory on a plate.
The 49 per cent of Bosnia to be given to the Serbians under the current plan would be a massive defeat for the Bosnian people.
That the West is split on how to achieve this does not resolve Socialist Outlook has always been completely opposed to Western military intervention by air or by ground troops. In the end they will partition and defeat Bosnia. the problem.
The USA cannot afford to be seen to sit back and do nothing whilst Bosnia is attacked. On the other hand there is a strict limitation on the involvement they are prepared to undertake under the present conditions.
Western powers are split apart partly through the pressure of their historic interests and connections and partly through their current alliances. and France have historic connections with Serbia, whilst Germany's connections are with Croatia and Slovenia.
Bulwark Turkey, on the other hand, is the US main strategic and military bulwark in the eastern Mediterranean against the influence of Russia.
Turkey is key player in the region, with a huge military capability, recently massively reequipped by the US as a pay-off for its role in the Gulf war, and with links directly into the Muslim world.
The Turkish military threat has always been in the background of the Bosnian conflict since it is unlikely that Turkey would stand aside and see the final defeat of the majority muslim Bosnian government.
Any Turkish intervention, (and Turkey is close enough to intervene with ground forces) could spark a regional conflagration much greater than the current war - with Greece likely to enter the war on the side of Serbia.
The greatest strategic interest of the US is Middle East oil, and this is completely intermeshed with its Bosnia policy.
At stake are Washington's strategic relations with key muslim regimes in the Gulf.
The recent military build up against Iraq was only partly triggered by mid-term election 250,000 people have been killed and problems: it was also a further step towards a military presence in the region.
Standing aside while the Bosnians are defeated is not the way to promote current US moves to establish a greater presence and influence in the oil states.
Whilst there are enough strategic interests involved for the US to take a generally pro-Bosnian line, there is not enough at stake yet for them to risk a military intervention with ground troops.
Whether this would change in the unlikely event of Sarajevo falling and the Bosnian government being overrun and finally defeated is another matter.
Possibly a direct US intervention might then take place if the UN and NATO were out of the way. But this would be to protect American interests, not None of this is very new. It is not something which has come up since the mid-term elections. These have been Clinton's consideration for at least a year, during which time he has been vacillating backward and forthe issues of political principle From that point of view, we tween 'warring factions'. pansionist Serbia which mobitime against Croatia as well, 250,000 people have been killed, and huge tracts of territory "ethnically cleansed", with millions made refugees.
At stake in Bosnia is the right of a sovereign people to determine their own future and to defend themselves against aggression on a vast scale.
In this we do not give political support to the Bosnian government - or other government in the region. Our ANALYSIS support is for the right of the Bosnian people to self determination and against ethnic division.
These basic rights are democratic and working class issues. The labour movement in the rest of Europe has a direct responsibility to show solidarity with the Bosnian struggle.
This means demanding an end to the arms embargo.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No.73-74, December 1994, Page 6 By David Coen THE SUDDEN ending of Albert Reynold's glittering career shows how volatile Irish politics has become and how precarious the "peace process' really is.
Having taken over from Charles Haughey and failed to win an overall majority at the following general election Reynolds, former dance hall owner and pet food manufacturer, nevertheless managed to put together a coalition government between this own Fianna Fail and the labour Party - a government with the largest Dail majority in the history of the state.
Now Reynolds is gone after a series of deeply embarrassing blunders that rocked the coalition. His efforts as one of the main architects of the 'peace process' were not enough to save him from a shot across the bows from Dick Spring which accidentally, it appears, hit him amidships.
Saddam Hussein had a bit part in this melodrama. The Gulf war of 1990 led to an embargo on payments to western govermients.
This exposed the fact that Dublin's export Credit guarantee scheme has heavily weighted in favour of one Harry Goodman, meat baron and close friend of the then prime minister Charles Haughey.
The scandal which was the final nail in Haughey's political coffin led to the setting up of the Beef Tribunal, led by a senior judge, which after 18 months investigation concluded... that it shouldn't reach a conclusion.
The Industry Minister during this period was one Albert Reynolds who used the scandal The simple fact remains that Fianna Fail and the SDLP share the desire to see the republicans beaten by the British. catholic, who had used the constitution to try to stop the victim in the infamous 'X' case from coming to Britain for an abortion, was really in the tradition of Tone and Connolly.
The debate (such as it is) inside the republican movement is between support for the leadership's peace initiative or a return to a military strategy. The problem is neither can win. The British cannot be driven out by military force alone.
The political strategy of rely. ing on Fianna Fail would lead to disaster, even if Reynolds had not resigned. The simple fact remains that Fianna Fail and the SDLP share the desire to see the republicans beaten by the British:
This is not to say that the base of Fianna fail have given up their 'republican' ideals but that Fianna Fail itself isn't a possible ally of revolutionary nationalists from Belfast and the small farmers of South Armagh.
The triumphalism which greeted the cease-fire has not changed the balance of forces in favour of the republicans. In fact on the political level Major's ability to deliver even the most marginal concessions as part of the framework document is severely limited.
He is too reliant on the official Unionists and the threat to his majority posed by the anti-EU right, a group which also violently oppose any concession to the republicans.