Speech given by Mr. Andras Riedlmayer in Boston on 3/20/93:
 
 
My name is Andras Riedlmayer.  I am a librarian at Harvard's Fine Arts 
Library and I would like to explain why I came to be here today. 
 
When the bloodshed started in Bosnia a little less than a year ago, I 
stood by and watched--like the rest of the world--as an urbane, 
civilized community in the heart of Europe began to be torn to shreds 
in front of millions of television viewers. I may have been following 
events more closely than some, because I have a personal connection--
having travelled and done research in that part of the world.  Since 
my work involves the documentation of historic art and architecture, I 
also felt a special sense of loss when I saw the first pictures of 
medieval buildings in Sarajevo and other Bosnian towns reduced to 
rubble by Serbian artillery fire.  Still, it somehow did not seem 
right to grieve for bricks and stones when human beings were suffering 
and dying. 
 
Then, in early summer came the news that the Serbs had blown up the 
picturesque old town of Mostar, destroying its cathedral, its many 
beautiful mosques and all but one of its famous old bridges.  In late 
August we saw the National and University Library in Sarajevo being 
shelled for three days with incendiary grenades.  Despite the heroic 
efforts of firefighters and volunteers, the building burned to the 
ground and one of the great libraries of Europe went up in flames--
over 1.5 million books and manuscripts were lost, wiping out much of 
the written record of Bosnia's history. 
 
It soon became clear that what we are witnessing is not merely 
"collateral damage" incidental to the general mayhem of warfare.  
Early last September, BBC reporter Kate Adie interviewed Serbian 
gunners on the hillsides overlooking Sarajevo and asked them why they 
had shelled the one hotel in town that housed all of the foreign 
correspondents.  The Serbian officer commanding the guns apologized, 
saying they had not intended to hit the hotel, but had been aiming at 
the roof of the National Museum behind it.  The gunners soon improved 
their aim, and the museum, and its unique Bosnian folklore collection, 
is no more. 
 
The Serbian nationalists' aim was and remains to wipe out any physical 
evidence that could remind us that people other than Serbs ever lived 
in Bosnia and Hercegovina.  It is to this end that Muslim mosques, 
Roman Catholic churches, Jewish cemeteries, and all of the country's 
libraries, archives, and museums are being torched, dynamited and 
bulldozed even as we speak.  The practitioners of ethnic cleansing are 
not content to terrorize and kill the living; they want to eliminate 
all memory of the past as well. 

82 responses total.

This item linked from Agora 14 to History 22.

The Big Brother history revision method in action.

And I thought I felt ill before I read this.  

 Nuke them all, & let their deities sort them out.

The victors always get to write the history books.  But it doesn't mean
I have to like it.  So what should the stance of the rest of the
"civilized" (and I do use the term loosely) world be?

   Today's NYT reported that the 'legislative' body for the
Bosnian Serbs completely rejected the Vance-Owen proposal
in any form, even though their leader had accepted it
providing that some parts could be changed.  One of the
legislators was quoted as saying that we (the Serbs) should
just seize the territory we want by military force.  (I don't
remember the exact quote.)

    The Serbs are completely intransigent.  We have only
two real alternatives -- let them completely slaughter the
Bosnian Moslems and Croats, or intervene.  Half measures
like the ones we have been taking will only prolong the
agony.

I tend to agree, but where does it stop?  After Yugoslavia, we'll have
to go somewhere in Africa, then somewhere in Asia, then somewhere else
undoubtedly.  It's not that I'm against it, but it's going to be a real
quagmire.

CroMagnon mentality has always been a quagmire. 

   It is seeing things like this that gives me just the slightest
amount of sympathy for the old Soviet government.  I sure don't know
what the solution is, other than to airlift anyone out of the country
who'd like to, and let the warring factions turn each other into ashes.

What is wrong with these people?  While I realize that this is too simplistic,
I cannot understand why these people go on destroying everything.  I mean,
when they are done, there will be nothing left for the "victors."  Sorry
for any offense to the Wolverine fans...
 What is in thhe heads of peoople that engage in this kind of behavior. It's
like they have no brains: no self control...

What is in their heads?   Scorched earth...

Its religion. The Serbs are eastern orthodox, the Bosnians islam, and
the Croatians Roman Catholic. They have been slaughtering each other
for centuries because of differences of opinion about mythology - and,
of course, hatred created by the fact they have been slaughtering each
other for centuries. Since the whole mess is based on religions all of
which *teach* things like "do unto others....", charity, life is sacred,
it is astonishing that the hatred is considered compatible with that,
and that the religious leaders condone this very nonreligious behavior.

Re 12.  Um, wrong.  They have *not* been "slaughtering each other for
centuries."  That is a myth.  The Great Powers sometimes fought over
pieces of the Balkans, but full scale ethnic war between the Serbs,
Croats, etc., dates really only to World War I.

For those who'd like to know about the war in former Yugoslavia beyond
the myths and slogans and conventional wisdom, I recommend the recent
article in "Foreign Affairs" by ... um ... I forget the name, but I'll
find the cite and post it.  Also, an interesting article appeared recently
in the Washington Post titled "The Balkan Quagmire Myth" which debunks a
lot of the things that have been repeated here and elsewhere.  The latter
was posted on the other system.

Maybe this war is a positive thing.  Natural selection taking over.  All of
the petty, hating types will be killed off, leaving the peoples who just
want to live peacefully alive.  Displaced, but alive.  Many innocents will
lose their lives, but there are MANY parellels between today and the
beginnings of World War I.  The archduke Ferdinand was assasinated in
Bosnia, in Sarajevo, by a Serb who was angry with his ethnic neighbors.
Does this sound at all familiar?  Now, the empires and center of power is
no longer in west-central Europe, but with our mobility, its not that far
off.  I can easily see how some kind of well-intentioned UN-sanctioned
action could get blown way out of proportion and end up a big conflict.  To
convince yourself, just spend a few minutes pondering the consequences of
Russia siding with the Serbs, which they have historically done.  Scary.

Re 13: The Latin (Roman) world invaded the easter (Moslem) through the
11th to 13th centuries, in the Crusades. The Moslems returned the favor
several times, overrunning Constantinople, and the surrounding lands. The
Latin and Eastern (orthodox) catholic worlds got involved too, as the Latin
church tried to conquer the Eastern church "en route" to "ethinically clean"
the holy land. The Eastern church didn't have the resources to return the
favor, but they wanted to. (My memory of the details of all this, 
originally acquired from Gibbons, is now a bit rusty, but these people
*were* slaughtering each other practically from the day the different
churches arose.)

Re: #15   It's not killing off the hateful types.  Murder and 
slaughter just creates and reinforces hate and revenge.  It's
getting rid of the people who advocate peace and tolerance,
because there seems to be less and less reason (there) to
accept peace with those who would slaughter your friends
and family.

Re 16.  The Roman Church and the Ottoman Empire are kind of what I meant
by the Great Powers.  Serbs and Croats in the Balkans lived in peace with
each other for centuries before World War I.

#12: Hatred and violence has always been compatible with religion.
 
I think the Serbs as opposed to the plan because it gives less territory to the
Serbs than the Serbs have in possesion (conquered) right now. Similar to the
Persian Gulf crisis, a very important question right now is, "Are the Serbs
reasonable -- are they willing to negotiate and compromise." The answer in
the Persian Gulf was, "No, Saddam is not willing to compromise at all -- he
*wants* war." The answer from the Serbs is coming perilously close to Saddam's
answer, and foreign intervention seems inevitable.

As for the possibility of a wide-scale conflict starting in the Balkans:
yes, the possibility is quite real and taken seriously.  Most of the
concern focuses on the Serbian province of Kosovo.

Kosovo is cherished by Serbian nationalists as some kind of historic
heartland of Serbia.  However, it adjoins Albania, and the population
of Kosovo is more than 90% ethnic Albanians (and has been that way for
generations or centuries).  Kosovo had some limited autonomy within
the context of the Yugoslav federation, even though it was officially
part of Serbia.

With the coming of Serbian nationalist hysteria in 1990-91, the Serbian
government unilaterally revoked all self-government in Kosovo, fired
all non-Serbs from government jobs, closed all non-Serbian schools and
universities, shut down all Albanian-language media, declared martial
law, and sent more than 100,000 troops to enforce it.  Around the same
time, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, although the Kosovars had
no weapons to put this into effect.

Since that time, Kosovo has been a very tense place.  The troops have
made life difficult for the ethnic Albanian majority there, including
many beatings and occasional killings of people who just happen to pass
on the street.  Heavy weapons have been moved in to surround Pristina and
other Kosovo towns.  The Serbian nationalist parties are clamoring for
the expulsion of all non-Serbs from Kosovo, an ethnic cleansing project
which would generate about a million refugees and/or dead.

It is generally understood in military and diplomatic circles that the
slaughter and displacement of ethnic Albanians would force Albania to
enter the war; Macedonia also has a large Albanian minority which would
probably also rush to Kosovo's defense.  In the meantime, many of the
refugees would end up in Macedonia (already destabilized by Bulgarian
and Greek hostility over whether it has a right to exist) and spread
the war there as well.  Independent media in Belgrade have found plans
by the Serbian government to invade Macedonia and/or divide it with
Greece.  Bulgaria and Turkey have warned that they could not possibly
tolerate this.  There's more, but the bottom line is a large and spreading
war.

With all this in mind, George Bush actually found enough backbone to
issue a threat to Milosevic: ethnic cleansing in Kosovo would be met
with direct U.S. military involvement.  Not "Oh, we'll consult with 
the UN and maybe tighten sanctions or something" but the equivalent
of "War against Kosovo's population will be met with the U.S. Marines."
Clinton has reiterated this; the threat continues in effect.

Think about it: two successive U.S. presidents have promised direct
involvement of U.S. troops in a portion of Serbia itself.  (Bosnia, by
contrast, has never been a part of Serbia.)

Funny thing!  The Serbian troops in Kosovo (though being very repressive)
have behaved themselves.  Ethnic cleansing is not taking place.

Why do I have to live on the same planet with these people!?

Why are we considered of the same species?

It is a trait of our species to devolve into clans - to "balkanize" - at
the drop of a hat or the word of a demagogue, on bases of opinion,
land claims, skin color, or just greed. No other species does this. It is
all the fault of "evolution"...8-(. 

At our cores, we're all still animals.

 ... thinly disguised as socialized beings, for a short, uneventful, while.
  
An "event" however ........

Isn't ironic that a species that has done so much good can also be capable
of the most brutal of behavior as well?

We can explore the planets and the stars, but we can not keep from fighting
amongst ourselves.

Sad.

Re 22.  Because we can breed with them and give birth to fertile offspring.

Re #24. Now, wait a minute. We are 100% animal. Our additional mental
capacity doesn't move us a jot from animal. It is, of course, our
additional mental capacity that allows us to conceive intentional
brutality as well as it allowed a Mozart.

re #20:  It is hard to believe that the Serbs have 100,000 regular troops
         in their entire military, let alone that number to arm and send into
         Kosovo.  I find that figure bloated, even if it includes irregulars.

 Human animals are a lot more brutal than non-human animals.
 
    The wholesale slaughter needs to be stopped. We know it is taking place n  
    
now, so expressing shock & remorse at the # of dead a few years from now 
(asuming the situation somehow ends by then...) won't do any good.
 
   Hillary Clinton needs to take aside the leaders of the warring nations &
individually say to them "The world is tired of this bullshiit, & frankly,
we're getting tired of spending all this money trying to make you ^%$#*
stop the stupid war.  You ^%$#* have one week to stop the war.  After that
time, I'm here to tell you that the United States of America will KILL --
ASASSINATE -- TERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE, you, Mr. _____, and you, 
Mr. ______, & we will do the same to your successors until the only people in
your countries that are left are the innocent ones who don't give a damn about
how much land their country has, but whether or not they will have food &
shelter the next day.  The choice is yours.  You will stop the killing, or
you will be killed."


   The United Nations has been 'Speaking loudly, with a limp dick" & are
being ignored.  With tens of thousands of innocent people dying, it is time
to "Speak surely, & prepare the big stick."

On the evidence, that approach doesn't work too well.

Re 29.  The 100,000 troops figure has appeared in many reliable news
sources including, I think, the Economist and the New York Times.  I
did misstate the number of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo: it's two million,
not one million.

Don't forget that the ethnic Russians are joining the Serbs: they believe it's
their war, too.

re #32:  Even so....

         Do you recall whether the figure referred to regular troops?  I
         suppose, if one defines a "troop" as any male above a certain age,
         it is possible....

   Much as I hate to say it, a part of me really likes #30.  Looking
at it from a misery standpoint, killing just a few politicians, and
scaring the shit all of all the rest might do more than a legion of
diplomats.  At the worst it would only add a few people to the death
rolls if it failed.
   When so many innocent people are killed over so little, I think
drastic actions are needed.  Of course, we won't do this, because it
would be decisive.  Also I believe we have a law about not doing that
sort of thing.
   But I think it would a hell of a lot more humane than most other
actions.

part of the problem is assuming that it's only the politicians with hatreds
and ambitions. that's more often true here (but again, not always) than it
is in places like the former yugoslavia. there are too many people who hate
the "others" in the world to tame the world's problems by killing the 
politicians. or the lawyers.

   I guess I'm not so sure about that.  If it became known that the US
was going to make a real effort to kill those "at the top" of the conflict,
I have to wonder how many would accept or desire such positions of power.
All of a sudden it becomes a very personal matter--if I try to head this
faction, the US is going to try and kill me.  Thats a lot different than
the faceless diplomatic channels that are usually used.
   I'm not going to advocate this, but I do have to wonder what would
happen if we did something like this.  We already know how good the United
Nations is at stopping things.  Part of me does wonder if this could be
any worse.  (Not that I think the UN is a bad thing--its certainly done
a lot of good.  But it isn't terribly effective).

   Back to the item at hand: can anyone point me to books on the
conflict in general, some overall history?

While someone collects some titles for you (and us) to read, the
idea of starting at the top and killing-down has philosophical
merit. However, the stopping point is vastly out of focus, as it
was with the Cambodian self-pogrom of recent years. They weren't

particularily brutal or vengeful, just killers nearly sans hatred,
in the main.

Who is responsible for arming both sides?  Are all of the Serbs'
weapons homemade?  Is any of this war being paid for by monies
labeled foreign aid?

I get such a kick out of how the US, Germany, Russia, and company
hold blue-light specials on weaponry for these tinderbox countries
and then sit back and debate endlessly the morality of stepping in
when all hell breaks out.

We have already stepped in, bigtime.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss