![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a_kleberWhy appeasement must not have another chance;Opinions;The Balkans
George Soros. The Times. London (UK): Aug 2, 1993.
AS I AM recording this in my office in New York, Sarajevo is in imminent danger of falling, negotiations are going on in Geneva, and America is on the verge of some kind of military gesture.
Conditions in Sarajevo are worse than at any time during the 16-month siege. The water supply is contaminated. The first cases of dysentery have been reported and hepatitis has increased. There is imminent danger of epidemic disease. I follow the situation in Sarajevo particularly closely because my foundation has been active there. The only clean water that is available has been installed and maintained by us. It consists of two deep wells from which water is pumped to taps out of sight of snipers, though unfortunately not out of artillery range.
Some of the other enclaves of eastern Bosnia are even worse off than Sarajevo, and central Bosnia, which had been relatively stable, is now destabilised by the influx of refugees and by fighting between Serbs, Muslims and Croats. We are heading into a human catastrophe of the first magnitude. It does not quite compare with the Holocaust but, in one respect, it is worse. We did go to war with Germany, whereas in Bosnia we are standing idly by.
The world does not seem to appreciate what is at stake. We are aware of the human suffering, we are outraged at the atrocities, we are humiliated by the inability of the United Nations and the European Community to prevent violence. But we do not quite understand the implications of our failure to intervene militarily. If we did, then we would have intervened long ago.
In Bosnia, we have witnessed unspeakable brutality committed in the name of a doctrine, the doctrine of the ethnic state. The ethnic state leaves no room for people with different ethnic identities and "ethnic cleansing" can turn ethnic identity into a matter of life and death. If the doctrine prevails, it is the end of our civilisation as we know it. I realise these are large words, but I believe they are justified.
The civilised world has been surprisingly complacent. The Balkans have been painted as some kind of hellhole where ethnic conflicts are endemic and where one should engage in humanitarian relief and conflict resolution but avoid taking sides because all sides are to blame.
This is the message the public is receiving but the politicians and the Foreign Office ought to know better. They are probably influenced by what is going on in Northern Ireland and by their memories of what happened in Yugoslavia during the second world war. They ought to remember the appeasement at Munich. In Bosnia, Britain has played a particularly insidious role. I am not sure whether or not it was by design, but by putting a peacekeeping force on the ground it was able to prevent America from using air power on the rare occasion when it was ready to. Not that Washington was all that eager to follow through. The image of Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State, wringing his hands and saying "We have done what we could" will go down in history just as Chamberlain's umbrella did.
Our ability to suffer humiliation and to sustain moral outrage has its limits. I set up a humanitarian foundation for Bosnia as an expression of my outrage and in the hope of goading leaders of the civilised world to take a firmer position. I have become deeply involved. But lately I have found myself focusing on other things and avoiding having to deal with Bosnia. It was too painful. I notice a similar tendency among policy-makers and the media.
What is to be done now? We must take a stand even at this late stage. I propose lifting the siege of Sarajevo. The Serb roadblock that separates the airport from the town cannot be defended: the threat of military action would be sufficient to remove it. The bombardment of Sarajevo could be stopped by issuing an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of artillery within 24 hours. I was told at a Pentagon briefing that we know where virtually every one of the 1,400 pieces of artillery in Bosnia is located and we could take out most of them in one stroke. Getting rid of the snipers could be left to the Bosnian army.
I realise Britain has strenuously opposed the use of air power because it would endanger ground troops. Let us get the facts right. British troops are nowhere where they could be directly threatened by the Serbs. Only when escorting convoys do they come into contact with the Serbs and they have done precious little of that lately. This is merely an excuse for inaction.
I also realise that the American military is keen to stay out of Bosnia. The lesson from the Gulf war and Vietnam is that military action should be confined to situations where we have a clear objective, we can bring overwhelming force to bear, and we can accomplish our goal with minimal loss of life. Incremental engagement is to be avoided at all costs; Bosnia is disqualified on all these grounds. General Colin Powell told me that he is ready to follow orders provided President Clinton defines his objectives clearly.
The objective is clear: we must prevent the creation of a greater Serbia and a greater Croatia. If we agree to the principle of the ethnic state and to the enlargement of Serbia and Croatia by force, all hell will break loose. Renewed fighting between Croatia and Serbia becomes almost inevitable because Croatia cannot give up its Serb-dominated part, Krajina, without a fight: it would cut the country in two. Kosovo and Macedonia are at high risk. The objective in Bosnia is not to achieve victory but to prevent the victory of the ethnic state. And the best place to take a stand is Sarajevo, a symbol of open society which is now threatened with destruction by the doctrine of the ethnic state.
Why should we get involved at such a late stage? There is a simple reason: we were wrong not to get involved earlier.
I met Douglas Hurd, the foreign secretary, in the Commons on January 14 and urged him to lift the siege of Sarajevo. He told me that the people "up there" would not stand for it. And then he said: "Milosevic (the president of Serbia) can't last much longer anyhow." I was flabbergasted. It was one of the worst mistakes in political judgment and it is time to admit it.
We must also start thinking beyond Bosnia. The old world order ceased with the Soviet collapse. There is only one superpower, and it is unsure of its mission. Yet we desperately need a new world order, otherwise we are going to have disorder. I propose that the principle of open society where no dogma has a monopoly, where the individual is not at the mercy of the state, where minorities and minority opinions are respected ought to be accepted as the basis of the new world order and the creation and preservation of open societies ought to be recognised as the prime objective of foreign policy.
This idea is very far removed from current thinking. Whether an open or a closed society prevails can be a matter of life or death. I learnt that at an early age when I nearly ended up in a gas chamber because of my ethnic origin.
Once we recognise the principle of open society as the prime objective of foreign policy, we would know better what to do going forward. First, we would persevere with the prosecution of war crimes. There is enough evidence to hand down indictments, and if we maintain the pressure we might be able to bring some of the culprits to trial.
Second, we would fill the vacuum left by the Soviet collapse. We would re-establish a credible deterrent; without it, violence is bound to spread.
But deterrence is not enough. We must also provide a constructive alternative to ethnic strife. I first proposed a new kind of Marshall Plan in 1988 at a conference in Potsdam, but I was laughed out of court. Now that unemployment is rampant right through Europe, it may be time to think about it again. But first things first: let's deal with Bosnia while it is still there. This is an edited extract from last night's Opinions programme produced by Open Media for Channel 4.
George Soros. The Times. London (UK): Aug 2, 1993.
AS I AM recording this in my office in New York, Sarajevo is in imminent danger of falling, negotiations are going on in Geneva, and America is on the verge of some kind of military gesture.
Conditions in Sarajevo are worse than at any time during the 16-month siege. The water supply is contaminated. The first cases of dysentery have been reported and hepatitis has increased. There is imminent danger of epidemic disease. I follow the situation in Sarajevo particularly closely because my foundation has been active there. The only clean water that is available has been installed and maintained by us. It consists of two deep wells from which water is pumped to taps out of sight of snipers, though unfortunately not out of artillery range.
Some of the other enclaves of eastern Bosnia are even worse off than Sarajevo, and central Bosnia, which had been relatively stable, is now destabilised by the influx of refugees and by fighting between Serbs, Muslims and Croats. We are heading into a human catastrophe of the first magnitude. It does not quite compare with the Holocaust but, in one respect, it is worse. We did go to war with Germany, whereas in Bosnia we are standing idly by.
The world does not seem to appreciate what is at stake. We are aware of the human suffering, we are outraged at the atrocities, we are humiliated by the inability of the United Nations and the European Community to prevent violence. But we do not quite understand the implications of our failure to intervene militarily. If we did, then we would have intervened long ago.
In Bosnia, we have witnessed unspeakable brutality committed in the name of a doctrine, the doctrine of the ethnic state. The ethnic state leaves no room for people with different ethnic identities and "ethnic cleansing" can turn ethnic identity into a matter of life and death. If the doctrine prevails, it is the end of our civilisation as we know it. I realise these are large words, but I believe they are justified.
The civilised world has been surprisingly complacent. The Balkans have been painted as some kind of hellhole where ethnic conflicts are endemic and where one should engage in humanitarian relief and conflict resolution but avoid taking sides because all sides are to blame.
This is the message the public is receiving but the politicians and the Foreign Office ought to know better. They are probably influenced by what is going on in Northern Ireland and by their memories of what happened in Yugoslavia during the second world war. They ought to remember the appeasement at Munich. In Bosnia, Britain has played a particularly insidious role. I am not sure whether or not it was by design, but by putting a peacekeeping force on the ground it was able to prevent America from using air power on the rare occasion when it was ready to. Not that Washington was all that eager to follow through. The image of Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State, wringing his hands and saying "We have done what we could" will go down in history just as Chamberlain's umbrella did.
Our ability to suffer humiliation and to sustain moral outrage has its limits. I set up a humanitarian foundation for Bosnia as an expression of my outrage and in the hope of goading leaders of the civilised world to take a firmer position. I have become deeply involved. But lately I have found myself focusing on other things and avoiding having to deal with Bosnia. It was too painful. I notice a similar tendency among policy-makers and the media.
What is to be done now? We must take a stand even at this late stage. I propose lifting the siege of Sarajevo. The Serb roadblock that separates the airport from the town cannot be defended: the threat of military action would be sufficient to remove it. The bombardment of Sarajevo could be stopped by issuing an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of artillery within 24 hours. I was told at a Pentagon briefing that we know where virtually every one of the 1,400 pieces of artillery in Bosnia is located and we could take out most of them in one stroke. Getting rid of the snipers could be left to the Bosnian army.
I realise Britain has strenuously opposed the use of air power because it would endanger ground troops. Let us get the facts right. British troops are nowhere where they could be directly threatened by the Serbs. Only when escorting convoys do they come into contact with the Serbs and they have done precious little of that lately. This is merely an excuse for inaction.
I also realise that the American military is keen to stay out of Bosnia. The lesson from the Gulf war and Vietnam is that military action should be confined to situations where we have a clear objective, we can bring overwhelming force to bear, and we can accomplish our goal with minimal loss of life. Incremental engagement is to be avoided at all costs; Bosnia is disqualified on all these grounds. General Colin Powell told me that he is ready to follow orders provided President Clinton defines his objectives clearly.
The objective is clear: we must prevent the creation of a greater Serbia and a greater Croatia. If we agree to the principle of the ethnic state and to the enlargement of Serbia and Croatia by force, all hell will break loose. Renewed fighting between Croatia and Serbia becomes almost inevitable because Croatia cannot give up its Serb-dominated part, Krajina, without a fight: it would cut the country in two. Kosovo and Macedonia are at high risk. The objective in Bosnia is not to achieve victory but to prevent the victory of the ethnic state. And the best place to take a stand is Sarajevo, a symbol of open society which is now threatened with destruction by the doctrine of the ethnic state.
Why should we get involved at such a late stage? There is a simple reason: we were wrong not to get involved earlier.
I met Douglas Hurd, the foreign secretary, in the Commons on January 14 and urged him to lift the siege of Sarajevo. He told me that the people "up there" would not stand for it. And then he said: "Milosevic (the president of Serbia) can't last much longer anyhow." I was flabbergasted. It was one of the worst mistakes in political judgment and it is time to admit it.
We must also start thinking beyond Bosnia. The old world order ceased with the Soviet collapse. There is only one superpower, and it is unsure of its mission. Yet we desperately need a new world order, otherwise we are going to have disorder. I propose that the principle of open society where no dogma has a monopoly, where the individual is not at the mercy of the state, where minorities and minority opinions are respected ought to be accepted as the basis of the new world order and the creation and preservation of open societies ought to be recognised as the prime objective of foreign policy.
This idea is very far removed from current thinking. Whether an open or a closed society prevails can be a matter of life or death. I learnt that at an early age when I nearly ended up in a gas chamber because of my ethnic origin.
Once we recognise the principle of open society as the prime objective of foreign policy, we would know better what to do going forward. First, we would persevere with the prosecution of war crimes. There is enough evidence to hand down indictments, and if we maintain the pressure we might be able to bring some of the culprits to trial.
Second, we would fill the vacuum left by the Soviet collapse. We would re-establish a credible deterrent; without it, violence is bound to spread.
But deterrence is not enough. We must also provide a constructive alternative to ethnic strife. I first proposed a new kind of Marshall Plan in 1988 at a conference in Potsdam, but I was laughed out of court. Now that unemployment is rampant right through Europe, it may be time to think about it again. But first things first: let's deal with Bosnia while it is still there. This is an edited extract from last night's Opinions programme produced by Open Media for Channel 4.
