The War Crimes tribunal going on at the Hague is the first test of one
of the great principles of post-war politics -- the Nuremberg Doctrine
which makes individuals liable to international prosecution for actions
committed during a war. In the old days, military personnel and police
officers were expected to do as they were told. In time of war, a soldier
who refused to obey an order could and would be shot, sometimes without
a hearing. Officers and soldiers who shot prisoners or mistreated civilians
might be punished by their superiors; otherwise, the only penalty inflicted
on a guilty army was enemy retaliation -- you kill your prisoners, we'll
But after the Nuremberg trials, the phrase (always spoken with a phoney
German accent) "I vas just following orders" became both a standing
joke and a reproach against anyone who refused to disobey a dishonorable
order. [Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 8: The
fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of
a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered
in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so
At the time, there were people who were severely critical of the Trials.
At least one of the American prosecutors later thought they were conducted
unfairly, more in the spirit of Stalin's show trials than a like an Anglo-Saxon
trial by jury, and even recent evidence has been published showing the
prejudices that influenced the judges in deciding which prisoners were
executed and which let go.
The obvious fact of the matter was that after a war the losers were
being tried by the victors, and even under the best of circumstances, it
would be hard for a defeated nation to get a fair trial from its enemies.
The aftermath of WW I shows that. All the great powers -- England, France
and Russia as much as Austria and Germany -- were more or less guilty of
starting the Great War, but crippling reparations were enforced against
Germany by the Versailles treaty, which also required Germany to hand over
accused war criminals to be tried by the victors. In the event, some officers
were put on trial in Germany for committing "crimes", even though
similar crimes had been committed by the allies.
There is another similarity between the aftermaths of the two world
wars: the Versailles Treaty and Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points
were a preliminary attempt to establish a uniform code of international
conduct, according to which the Kaiser was to be charged with "a supreme
offense against international morality."
War is terrible, and even the best men do things which would otherwise
be regarded as crimes: they destroy houses, kill some people deliberately
and others through carelessness. Winston Churchill -- who did all of the
above in two World Wars -- was honest enough to see the hypocrisy of Nuremberg.
Churchill, Anthony Eden and even many Americans thought that the top Nazis
should have been killed as soon as they were captured, without setting
a dangerous precedent for international revenge.
This is not to say that the Nazi regime did not deliberately commit
mass murder against Jews, Poles, Russians, Serbs, even Italians, and that
the ringleaders should not have been summarily shot -- like Mussolini,
who was a choir boy compared to Hitler. Afterwards, a new German government
could have settled scores, as best it could, with the other criminals according
to German law. Or, if we had to have a trial, if it were limited to clear
evidence of international murder -- the slaughter of the Polish Jews, for
example -- no harm might have come of it.
Instead, the allies established three very dangerous principles: first,
that conspiracy to make war is a crime by itself Crimes against Peace:
namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression,
[Article 6, a] and second, that subordinates can be held responsible for
carrying out orders (after WW I officers were acquitted because they followed
orders, although in one case a naval officer was held culpable, because
he knew the orders themselves were illegal); and third, that it is criminal
to wage war against civilians; this includes such acts as murder, ill-treatment,
or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population.
Conspiracy -- By the above standard the following American Presidents
are undoubted war criminals: John Tyler, James K. Polk, Abraham Lincoln,
William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt,
Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, as well as Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush,
and Clinton. In some cases we might think these Presidents were justified
in initialing a war, in others not. But most leaders of great nations,
at one time or another make plans to wage a war, when they think it is
in their nation's interest -- and others when it is only in the leader's
I do not approve of aggressive wars. I have, in fact, opposed virtually
every American military action taken in my lifetime; but until George Bush
and Bill Clinton are dragged to The Hague in handcuffs and tried for their
aggressions, I am opposed to this hypocrisy.
Following orders -- Suppose you are a German soldier on the Russian
front, and you are told to assault a Ukrainian village and take no prisoners.
What do you do? If you refuse, you die on the spot. In fact, many German
officers did exactly that and were shot. They were heroes, martyrs, and
we bless their memory. But how hard can we be on a 17 year old conscript
who did as he was told and lived with the nightmare for the rest of his
It is not as if American soldiers have never done anything similar.
During WW II American soldiers more than once murdered their German prisoners
and Eisenhower gave orders against "coddling" POWs. It has been
argued that this led to the death of hundreds of thousands. Perhaps exaggerated,
but a great many disappeared. In the war in the Pacific, both the Americans
and the Japanese fought a war of extermination against each other. I heard
one marine officer, who had been at Pelelou, joke about how American journalists
had admired the marines' marksmanship: all the dead Japanese soldiers had
been shot in the forehead. That was -- you guessed it - because the marines
had executed all the wounded soldiers, who were in the habit of calling
for medics and then blowing up the medics with a grenade.
War against civilians -- Everyone knows of the Mylai massacre,
but such incidents were a routine occurrence in Vietnam. There were even
special groups of Navy SEALS (Mike Beamon, "The Green-Faced Frogmen"
in Santoli, 203-19) whose job was to sneak into Vietnamese villages to
murder civilians and make it look like the work of the Vietcong. We used
massive airstrikes against population centers, defoliated the forests,
and used flesh-burning napalm indiscriminately. Finally, the nations responsible
for the fire-bombing of undefended German cities are in no position to
point the finger at war criminals. Say it was justified, say that it saved
lives -- the Germans thought they had a noble purpose in killing Jews.
As one British foreign officer put it in 1945, [A.W. Harrison in Bradley
F. Smith, Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg] Bomber Harris must
have got more victims on his conscience than any individual German General
or Air Marshall. The judges at Nuremberg appear to have been aware
of allied war crimes because they refused to allow any but German documents
to be introduced as evidence.
The United States collaborated with the British in the fire-bombings,
but we bear sole responsibility for the use of atomic weapons against civilian
population centers. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an ineradicable black mark
on this nation's character, on the President who made the decision, and
on the people who reelected Harry Truman in 1948.
I.- The Hague "tribunal" is only a faint echo of the
Nuremberg trials. The alleged war crimes of the Serbs fall into same categories;
but even if they were all proved, they are trivial in comparison with anything
done not just by Germans but by Americans in recent years. At Nuremberg,
at least, an effort was made to fix the blame on the Nazi leadership: men
who had preached a doctrine of racial superiority, laughed at Christian
morality as weakness, and insisted that their strength and superiority
gave them the right to treat other nation as slaves and cattle. There were
no such leaders among the Serbs, and the so-called criminals who have been
put on trial are so insignificant that they would not have been allowed
even to testify at Nuremberg, much less enjoy the glory of a trial. So
far the only leaders who have been indicted have been Serbs -- clear evidence
of the double-standard at work.
The government of Croatia, in particular, has repeatedly refused to
collaborate with the Tribunal. Earlier this month, the Croatian ambassador
to the Netherlands addressed the Tribunal to explain his country's non-compliance,
and even when they handed over the documents that had been requested, the
ambassador continued to insist that there could not be any suggestion
that Croatia had given into threats. [Klarin, February 10-15] In complying,
Croatia remains defiant. By the criteria established at Nuremberg, there
are three men who must be tried first, otherwise the whole episode is a
farce, and those men are Franjo Tudjman, Alija Izetbegovic, and Slobodan
Milosevic -- but they are the very parties who ratified the Dayton accords.
Like the Nuremberg proceedings, the Hague Tribunal is an irregular and
illegal court. In the first place, the proper place for adjudicating international
disputes is the International Court of Justice, but the ICJ has been virtually
silent on the Balkans conflict. [Exception: accepting a case of Bosnia
v. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] In the second, the UN Security Council
has no business involving itself in what was, after all, a civil war. The
pretext was international security, but no one has ever taken the trouble
to prove that there was a real danger of international conflict. As Prof.
Alfred Rubin has written recently: If the Security Council, by its own
vote, can categorize events in such ways as to avoid limits on its own
authority...a radical change in the structure of the United Nations will
have been achieved.
In the third place, the United States and its partners in the Security
council have been careful to limit the investigation to crimes committed
by the three parties to the Civi1 War. Just as at Nuremberg, where the
Germans were not allowed to use any "tu quoque" arguments in
their own defense, the activities of the peace-keepers themselves -- including
the use of American air-power against civilians -- is not to be investigated.
At least at Nuremberg, some of the judges did their best to insure a fair
trial for the defendants, but this tribunal has been set up on the assumption
that Serbs are Nazis, and that their leaders deserve to be hanged. As Srdja
Trifkovic put it in the August 1996 issue of Chronicles, The model for
the Hague Tribunal is not Nuremberg 1946, but Moscow 1938. [p.19]
Were crimes committed by Serbs during the Bosnian Civil War? Undoubtedly.
These things occur in all wars, civil wars in particular, but no impartial
examination of the evidence has been able to attribute a criminal intention
to Serb military commanders.
l.- The most frequently heard charge is that the Serbs launched
military attacks on civilian population centers like Sarajevo. There is
a word for this -- it is war. To paraphrase the famous commentary on the
charge of the Light Brigade, ce n'est pas magnifique, mais c'est la
guerre. Even if the Serbs were responsible for all the faked explosions
in Sarajevo, they would be guilty of nothing that the U.S. does not routinely
do. In the Gulf War, before we ever committed ground troops, we subjected
Iraqi cities to a murderous barra,ge of missiles and heavy bombardment.
We completely destroyed their infrastructure-plumbing, water supplies,
electricity, all gone. Nobody really knows how many hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi civŘans have died as a result of the bombing and the subsequent
embargo. [Cf. P.M. Gallois, Le Sang du petrole]
If we are going to talk about military terrorism against a people, then
the United States should be accused of war crimes against the Serbs, not
only for when we bombed the Bosnian Serbs into submission but perhaps still
worse when our air-strikes prepared the way for the Croatian massacres
in the Krajina --massacres which shocked even the normally anti-Serb press.
It was the most brutal episode in a brutal war, and the blood is on our
2.- Ill treatment of civilians. War against civilians was U.S.
policy during the American Civil War according to the doctrine of total
war. Sherman's famous march to the sea, authorized by President Lincoln,
was a campaign to break the Southern will to resist by reducing women and
children to starvation. A similar plan was carried out in the Shenandoah
Valley. In Missouri, all the inhabitants living in a long strip along the
Kansas border were driven from their homes, which were then looted and
burned by Union troops. These were not isolated incidents: the terror bombings
of German cities in WW II had no direct military value - they were meant
to cause disaffection of German people - but they had the opposite effect.
The same can be said of the war of attrition waged in Vietnam or the brutal
suppression of the Filipino indepedence movement in the Spanish-American
3.- Rape. Upon closer inspection, most of the horror-stories
of Serbian rape camps turned out to be either gross exaggerations or even
outright fabrications. Were any Muslim women raped by Serb fighters? Probably,
undoubtedly. Should they be punished? Of course, either by the Muslims
or by their own government. Is rape something unusual in a war? Hardly.
The American army, it is said, raped its way through Germany, and the
only soldiers punished were the unlucky few who refused to stop when the
war was over. In fact, our record on this is still very bad. The German
government has repeatedly complained about the misconduct of American GI's
stationed in Germany, and the recent horror stories from Okinawa and Korea
reveal that rape is still regarded as a venial sin by the US military.
More recently, American soldiers have been accused of raping their female
comrades, and the most recent charges are coming from women stationed in
In the Civil War, Sherman's men, when they were not burning and looting,
spent their time raping the black slave women -- a subject that few historians
are willing to touch, because the unspoken assumption is that the victims
were, after all, only black. In one famous case, in Athens Alabama, a former
cossack officer turned over the town to be pillaged and the women -- white
as well as black, by the way -- to be raped. When Ivan Vasilev Turchin
was convicted at his court-martial, President Lincoln reinstated and promoted
him. This is the same Lincoln whose government established the first American
code of military ethics.
Drawn up by a German immigrant, Francis Lieber, this code was promulgated
as General Orders No.100. General Halleck, who authorized the code, was
the military officer who also gave General Sherman's soldiers their carte
blanche to burn, loot, murder, and rape their way across what had been
the richest section of the United States. This same government and same
officer bore responsibility for setting up the first concentration camp,
designed to intern possibly pro-Southern Indians in the Southwest, and
whose troops in Colorado massacred an Indian encampment at Sand Creek at
the very same time that their comrades-in-arms were putting the torch to
the cities of Atlanta, Georgia and Columbia, SC.
I have dwelled upon the war crimes of the United States, not because
I hate my country or want to blacken its reputation. Many other countries
have worse records. But war is usually a dirty business, and few nations
have clean hands. One fact alone should make us despise the entire procedure
set up at Nuremberg: the fact that Stalin, his hands reeking with the blood
of 50 million victims, was one of the prosecutors. None of the Nazi defendants,
perhaps not even Hitler, could match Stalin who even managed to prosecute
the Germans for the massacre of Polish officers in the Katyn forest --
a crime committed by the Russians themselves. [Smith, p.104]
III. - I have spoken about the hypocrisy, but there is a greater
danger in the Nuremberg mentality, and that is the underlying justification:
that there is a set of international human rights that take precedence
over national law, local custom, and religious tradition. The U.S. State
Department and the American media it controls have repeatedly accused the
Serbs of "human rights violations," a charge that can range from
rape and murder to an ethnic joke told in a private home.
Underneath all the horror-stories of rape camps and mass murder, there
is an underlying principle to the State Department line, and it is this:
Human beings are individuals whose only group affiliation is to a state
that protects their human rights. Differences of religion and nationality
are insignificant, and it is morally wrong for members of one group to
discriminate against members of another. In Bosnia, for example, this means
that a Serb would be wrong not to want a Muslim to move into his neighborhood,
or to oppose his daughter's marriage to a Muslim or a Croat. When these
prejudices become a policy of trying to preserve a Serb village or ensure
Serbian political and military control over an area, the acts are not only
wrong they are criminal.
From this perspective, all the parties in Bosnia are guilty of human
rights violations, but the Serbs are guiltier than the rest. Why? Because
the Muslims, in their desire to control the entire region -- let us not
make the mistake of calling it a country -- could play the multi-cultural
card. Some of the descriptions of Sarajevo make it sound like San Francisco
or Madison, Wisconsin; even the Croats -- once they were bullied into forming
a federation with the Muslims - they, too, were grudgingly multi-cultural.
Only the Serbs were honest in declaring their intentions, which was to
have either a separate Serbian state or else a Bosnian Serb republic within
what is left of Yugoslavia. In the eyes of the international community,
that desire by itself is a war crime.
Now, I am not going to stand up here and tell you that Bill Clinton
and Madeline Albright really care about human rights. (The President has
no time to think about foreign policy, he has enough to do just staying
out of jail during the next four years.) In fact, a glance at the Geneva
Convention will reveal at once the hypocrisy of the U.S. and Germany, since
the preamble to the latest version adopted in 1977 contains this lofty
statement: every state has the duty, in conformity with the Charter
of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the
threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or
political independence of any State. What else was the break-up of
Yugoslavia but the threat and the use of force against that nation's territorial
We should not waste time, reciting the motives for US foreign-policy
makers -- ignorance, greed, and lust for power. But the language and rhetoric
of human rights, repeated over and over by prissy little chatterboxes like
Nicholas Burns, has created the poisonous atmosphere that makes the Serbs
guilty even if they have never mussed the hair of a single child-butchering
A)- Where did such an idea come from? Since the Renaissance,
philosophers have dreamed of such an international law, and by the l8th
century most European nations were waging war according to certain rules
which forbade the murder of prisoners and excessive mistreatment of civilians.
In one sense, this is only good business: if wars are frequent, then whatever
the Germans do to the French, they may, in the course of a few years, get
a taste of their own medicine. The rule of tit-for-tat develops spontaneously
even during modern wars: in WW I, for example, French and German soldiers
respected each other's mess times and struck up a trade in cigarettes,
wine, and food, until their officers put a stop to it.
But the kind of international law that has developed in the 20th century
is neither pragmatic nor humane. It is a kind of religion -- the noxious
gas given off from the decay of Western Christianity. Religious people,
who see the image of God in their fellow human beings, are often reluctant
to go the full distance in brutality. But Western socie2y has been only
superficially Christian for the past two centuries. International human
rights are simply the idea of divine law, with God left out.
Since, for people like Helmut Kohl, Madeline Albright, and Bill Clinton,
there is no god but ambition, power, and wealth, they are forced to disguise
their crimes and double-dealing with the rhetoric of human rights and international
This idea of human rights has been kicking around for about five hundred
years, but it took concrete shape during the French Revolution, when the
revolutionaries proclaimed their declaration of the rights of man--the
right to life, property, freedom, etc. But what they did was a dress-rehearsal
for Russian communism: they destroyed churches, murdered priests, raped
nuns; they practiced scorched earth policy in the Vandee. [General Westem&127;ann,
a client of Damon, proudly reported to the Convention: Thre Vendee is
no more... According to your orders I have trampled their children beneath
our horses' feet; I have massacred their women, so they will no longer
give birth to brigands.1 do not have a single prisoner to reproach me...
Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment.] Yes, in the name of the Rights
of Man they confiscated property, massacred a large part of the upper class,
they created a whole class of people called "suspects" who had
no rights, because of who their parents were -- they even talked about
taking the children of suspects away in order to indoctrinate them.
The Soviet constitution, too, breathes with the warm glow of human rights,
and since World War II the nations of the world have ratified or endorsed
or proposed charter after charter on women's rights, children's rights,
religious rights, and ethnic rights. During exactly the same period, the
civilized world has witnessed an epidemic of child prostitution. Fifty
years ago a man who assaulted a little girl or a little boy would not have
to worry about getting a fair trial, because he would never have lived
that long. The same goes for the rapist and the child-murderer. Now these
psychopaths and degenerates are very unlucky if they have to spend full
five years in a psychiatric hospital.
Let me talk about just one of these charters: The International Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In this convention,
genocide is defined as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such"
and genocidal acts include:
A) killing members of the group, B) causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the groups, C) deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction,
D) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, E) forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.
Now, during the Bosnian Civil War, we heard a great deal about genocide.
The Serbs were said to be practicing ethnic cleansing which was interpreted
as a form of genocide against the Bosnian Muslims. But if we go over the
list of genocidal acts specified by the convention, we might reach a different
conclusion. As for the first charge -- killing members of the group, all
the parties are guilty. Serbs killed Muslims who killed Croats who killed
Serbs who killed Croats who killed Muslims who killed Serbs.
But let us look at the second and third charges -- serious bodily and
mental harm and the infliction of destructive conditions of life. Apart
from the normal incidents of war, the gravest bodily harm was caused by
the embargo, which -- as we now know -- was enforced only against the Serbs,
and not against the Muslims and Croats. In fact, the United States violated
more than one international agreement by arranging the passage of Iranian
arms by way of Croatia to the Muslims. The embargo was enforced so successfully
against the Serbs that vital necessities - food, medicines -- were not
allowed to enter into the country, and from Belgrade to Pale, Serbian children
were dying because there were not antibiotics or anesthetics for routine
operations. A reporter had brought this matter to the attention to officials
of the Red Cross in Switzerland, and they admitted that the Serbs were
receiving very little Red Cross assistance compared with what the Muslims
were receiving. If the world ever found out, they added, no one would ever
give money to the Red Cross again, an organization that plays politics
with human suffering.
Let us talk a moment about mental suffering. Over the past several years
I have received letters and phone calls from Serbs and Serb-Americans all
over the United States, telling me the same story: that they were loyal
Americans who loved this country, but that they were beginning to be afraid:
death threats in the mail, snubs and insults at work, their children bullied
at school. Last year Alex Dragnich wrote a piece in Chronicles going over
some of the evidence of what Serbian kids are exposed to: teachers telling
them they come from a race of genocidal butchers; a Weekly Reader
map comparing the actions of Bosnian Serbs to 'Nazi brutality'; even a
crossword puzzle where 'Serb' is the answer to clues like 'guilty party
Where does all this hatred spring from? To say that Americans get it
from the media is no answer, since Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw know as
little about the Serbs as they know about nuclear physics, German philosophy,
or life in middle America. In fact, the media campaign against the Serbs
was orchestrated in the US State Department, which has knowingly propagated
lies and hatred. If there is ever a real War Crimes tribunal, then these
masters of hatred -- Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright -- will face
the same charges as Julius Streicher, who was executed for his anti-Jewish
The other categories probably do not apply to the Bosnian Civil War,
but I would point out to you that it is the policy of this administration
to force contraception and abortion both on blacks and Hispanics in the
US and upon Third World nations. The usually unspoken assumption is that
the world has too many Africans, Indians, Asians and not enough Europeans.
I say usually unspoken, because back when Planned Parenthood was getting
underway, its founders were very open in promoting eugenics, and beneath
all their humanitarian rhetoric today, the agenda remains the same: don't
let the colored races breed. Both the United States and the United Nations
are part of this worldwide effort, which is defined -- in their own convention
-- as genocide.
The final category of genocidal crime is the transfer of children out
of their group. Strange as it may seem, such transfers are increasingly
common here in the United States. Many African Americans have expressed
outrage over the general pattern of adoption, which means that black children
are brought up in non-black homes. I think they go too far, and the many
white families who have adopted children of another race are obviously
good-hearted people. And yet, black Americans have heard our good intentions
before. The fact remains that there is a wholesale effort to raise black
children in surroundings that alienate them from their own people, and
black leaders do not hesitate to call this genocide.
But there is a more subtle aspect of question of child transfer. Illinois
has the most aggressive child protection statute in the nation. In most
states, the operating assumption is that a child, whenever possible, should
be kept with his natural parents. But because of several widely publicized
honor stories, usually involving a criminally insane mother who kills her
child, Illinois law no longer favors parents. Now it is only the best
interests of the child. Who determines the best interests? Social workers
and lawyers hired by the state.
Saving children from abuse is obviously a good thing to do. But what
constitutes abuse? According to UN and US statements on children's rights,
children have the right not to be spanked, the right to be brought up in
an atmosphere of religious toleration, the right to be provided with information
on sex and contraception. You probably do not realize that even as we speak,
there are religious parents all over this country whose children are being
taken away on unsupported allegations of abuse, there are home-schooling
families whose doors are being kicked in by social workers who think there
is something inherently wrong in parents who want to protect their kids
from public education or who think their own religion is preferable to
The attorney-general of the United States, Janet Reno, made her reputation
in Dade County, Florida, prosecuting fathers for sexually molesting their
daughters. In case after case, Reno violated every ordinary provision of
due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Wives who refused to testify
against their husbands -- a right guaranteed by Common Law -- were locked
up and subjected to duress. In one trial, I have been told, Ms Reno spent
the night in the cell with the mother-cum-reluctant witness, and held her
hand at the trial. In at least one of these cases, forensic tests have
destroyed the case against the father, and both the Wall Street Journal
and the Readers Digest have published exposes of the unmarried attorney-general
whose distaste for the male sex is all too well-known.
The justification for all this legislation is the doctrine of children's
rights. Until a few years ago, nearly everybody knew that children did
not have rights. They could not have civil rights, because they were not
legally persons -- they cannot vote, hold office, make contracts, incur
debt. As for their human rights, we used to believe that children had a
duty to love and obey their parents, and that parents, on the other hand,
had the duty to feed, clothe, protect, and educate his kids. Bad parents
were not abusing the rights of their sons and daughters; they were failing
in their duties as parents.
This is not a semantic difference. In modem political theory, a right
always turns out to mean a legal claim. If I have a right to an education,
that means that I have a have claim on somebody's wallet, somebody who
must pay for my schooling. In practice this means the government, which
steps in, not just in cases of abusive or deficient parents. In fact, our
governments-state and federal -- claim to act in loco parentis for all
the children of the country. This means that if a government agent decides
that a child's right is being violated, then the parents must face the
full force of the state of Illinois or even of the government of the United
Even the State Department can get involved. About ten years ago in Chicago,
a Ukrainian immigrant family decided they wanted to go home. Their son,
Walter, however, wanted to stay with his aunt. Although no wrong-doing
was ever alleged against the Polvchaks, the State Department stepped in
to enforce Walter's right to divorce his parents and stay in the United
States. Back then, the excuse was Communism. Today, it would be religious
freedom or the threat of female circumcision which has led some African
girls to claim asylum. The details change, the basic principle does not:
the doctrine of human rights means that in Bosnia Serbs are forced to live
in a country controlled by their enemies, and that here in the United States,
no citizen is free to raise his kids, manage his business, or think his
The United States and its satraps on the Security Council have established
a simple principle at the Hague: when other countries have problems, it
is a matter for the international community to take up, but if there were
a question of one of the permanent members of the Security Council -- a
question, say of Scotland or South Carolina demanding their independence,
or of attorney-general Reno's decision to massacre close to 100 people
in order to "protect the children" at Waco, the permanent members
can exercise their veto power.
The so-called New World Order that so many American conservatives are
obsessed with is only the American Empire doing business under a new logo.
In the new American International, Inc., children's rights are used as
a pretext for killing children: in order to defend the territorial sovereignty
of a non-existent nation -- Bosnia -- a member nation of the UN had to
be dismembered, and in order to assert the right of self-determination,
the Bosnian Serbs had to be forcibly subjected to a government they hated.
As an ancient Scot said of the First World Order, the Roman Empire: they
make a desert, they call it peace.
Is there any hope? Yes, there is, but it lies not in the karst-stubbled
hills of Bosnia, but here in Middle America, where the citizens have begun
to question government policies. There is evidence all around us that American
globalism abroad is cracking from the strain. The American foreign policy
elite -- never a very learned or astute class of people -- are now in the
position of those psychotics who think that it is their concentration that
keeps the planets in their orbits: if they fall asleep, the whole universe
will fly to pieces. This nation and its leaders lack the will and the mental
clarity required of a great empire, and every move we are likely to make
under "The Clinton Presidency, the Sequel" will be a monumental
Meanwhile here at home, the welfare-socialist state constructed in the
1930's is falling apart -- much as the Soviet Union disintegrated -- and
it is all the government can do to hold things together. More than a few
Americans now understand that the destruction of the Bosnian Serbs might
be a trial run for what can be done here in Chicago in the name of human
rights. For the time being it may be too late to do much for Bosnia, and
we can only pray it is not too late to do something to save the United
Dragnich, Alex. "Cry the Beloved Country," Chronicles,
February 1996, 22-26
Karsten, Peter. Law, Soldiers, and Combat. Westport, Ct.: Greenwood
Klarin, Mirko. "Blaskic Case: Minisers Ordered to Appear in Court,"
Tribunal Update, No.15 (10-15 Feb) an electronic service of the
Institute for War and Peace Reporting.
Rubin, Alfred P. "Dayton, Bosnia, and the Limits of Law" in The
National Interest 46 (Winter 96-97),
Santoli, A1, ed. Everything We Had: An Oral History of the Vietnam War
by Thirty-three American Soldiers Who Fought it. New York: Random House,1981.
Smith, Bradley F. Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg. New York: Basic
Taylor, Telford The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: a Personal Memoir.
Boston: Little Brown,1992.
Trifkovic, Srdja, "The Hague Tribunal: Bad Justice, Worse Politics,"
Chronicles, August 1996,15-19.