George Kenney: Critique

With the first paragraph, Kenney reveals a coy quality that will be found throughout his article. "Bosnia isn't the Holocaust or Rwanda; it's Lebanon."

Obviously Bosnia is not the Holocaust nor is it Rwanda. Just as obviously, it is not Lebanon. Until the Syrian army occupied Lebanon and brought about a forced peace, Lebanon was--in Douglas Hurd's famous terms--an equal killing field. It was divided into dozens of warlord controlled, religiously homogenous fiefdoms: Druze, Shi`ite, Sunni, Maronite, Catholic, etc. No one side had an overwhelming military advantage.

Bosnia is Bosnia. The differences between Bosnia and Lebanon are fundamental. In Bosnia, it was the Yugoslav National Army and the Bosnia Serb army that, for a crucial 6 months, had an absolutely overwhelming military superiority. During that time most of the 70% of Bosnia controlled by the Serb army was taken with little or no military resistance, and systematic atrocities against civilians were carried out as part of a plan to "ethnically cleanse" the area of all non-Serbs, a plan now nearing completion. To state that Bosnia is Lebanon is as meaningless as stating it is Rwanda or Los Angeles or the Island of the Lotus Eaters.

Why then would Kenney make such a statement? This latest article by Kenney manipulates stereotypes in a similar way to his previous article in the New York Times that spoke of "intemperate Muslims." Lebanon brings up to mind in most Americans the American marines blown up in a car bomb. It is a symbol in most Americans' mind of blind chaos. It is a symbol to many Americans of a failed intervention. The differences between the tragedies in the two natures are deep and significant, but Kenney evidently finds the stereotypes and symbolic associations of Lebanon useful.

The power of the "Mid East" stereotype in contemporary American society was most recently revealed in the avalanche of assumptions after the Oklahoma bombing that Arabs or Muslims were responsible for it. (These assumptions were shared by some of Milosevic's partisans on this newsgroup who posted premature accusations that the bombing was carried out by Muslims and therefore another justification for Milosevic's systematic extermination of Bosnian Islamic culture).

A relatively large number of white people have been killed in gruesome fashion in the first European blowup since World War II. In response, the United Nations has set up the first international war crimes trial since Nuremberg. But that doesn't mean the Bosnian Serbs' often brutal treatment of Bosnian Muslims is a unique genocide, as the United Nations and the Bosnian Muslims have charged.

I will discuss Kenney's confused notion of "unique genocide" in a posting dedicated to the difference between genocide as a term for a kind of systematic atrocity and the Holocaust as a term for a single unique genocidal event. But before that I need to deal with an insinuation he makes here.

Why does Kenney put the word "white" in front of "people" in the sentence: "A relatively large number of white people have been killed in gruesome fashion int he first European blowup since World War 11"? The adjective "white" has no relevance to Kenney's explicit arguments. The term can only be used to suggest that those who oppose NATO's condoning and complicity in the "ethnic cleansing" carried out primarily against Bosnian Muslims are racist and only care about Bosnians because Bosnians are white.

This racist charge has been used by those favoring the dismemberment of Bosnia for three years now. It was part of UN Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali's remark that Bosnia was a "rich man's war." I haven't run into any rich Bosnians (and by all accounts Bosnia was one of the poorer areas on the former Yugoslavia). Everyone realized Ghali was using a racial code. For "rich man" substitute "white."

Before the Somalia intervention, a number of American commentators made the Racist argument explicit. T.V. commentator Robert Novak, for example, stated repeatedly that those opposed NATO inaction in the fact of Bosnia's annihilation were racists who cared nothing about the starving Somalis.

The hypocrisy of Novak's position was shown when the U.S. did intervene in Somalia. That intervention saved over 500,000 lives. I supported it at the time and I still support it despite the tactical mistake that led to the needless deaths of a number of soldiers. To save 500,000 people from forced starvation is a worthwhile endeavor, not a failure. It should have been done. It would have been criminally negligent not to do it.

As soon as the Somali intervention was announced, Novak, who had been shedding crocodile tears about starving Somali babies, furiously OPPOSED it as interventionist folly. It became clear that Novak had been bringing up the Somali cause NOT out of any consideration for Somalis (about whom he could have cared less) but to impute, as George Kenney imputes, racism to those who oppose the annihilation of Bosnian culture.

Kenney never argues in his article that the West should not help Bosnians BECAUSE we need to help Rwandans first. That at least would have been an honorable argument. Nor has Kenney shown any evidence that to show that those who care about Bosnia are indifferent to Rwanda. (Some probably are, many are not). He just insinuates it.

In fact, an aggressive and assertive stance against Milosevic's genocide in 1992-3 might have made an impression on the Hutu extremists plotting genocide in Rwanda at the same period. The Hutu extremists in 1992-93 could not have failed to notice that Milosevic not only was getting away with his "ethnic cleansing" he was about to be REWARDED for it by European "peacemakers". I argued at the time that such a policy of appeasement was an incentive for further systematic "ethnic cleansing" around the world.

Similarly I favored, and still do, the U.S. military support for elected Haitian President Jean Betrand Aristide, with a credible U.S. military force being used to put President Aristide back into office and to keep off the death squads and macouts long enough for him to consolidate his stay. My only concern is that the U.S. force may not have stayed quite long enough. Many other supports of Bosnia supported the intervention on behalf of the elected government of Haiti.

Those who advocate NATO intervention to stop the "ethnic cleansing" did so NOT, as Kenney insinuates, because Bosnians are white. As one who had admired Kenney for his decision to resign from the State Department because of its refusal to speak truthfully and act effectively in the Bosnian tragedy, it is disillusioning to see him using such insinuations. If Kenney thinks those of us trying to help Bosnians are doing so because they are white, he should make a clear argument.

What Kenney's article ignores is the major issue of the "purview" of NATO. Those who called on NATO to stop the ethnic cleansing as soon as it began did so not because Bosnians are white, but because Bosnians fall within the purview of NATO as it has been redefined since the end of the cold-war. No longer justified as a protection against Soviet aggression, NATO was now supposed to keep the peace and stability of Europe. The "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnia WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED was something NATO should have stopped immediately, not because of the color of Bosnians, but because of their location and because what was happening in Bosnia--if condoned and appeased--will threaten the peace and stability of Europe for decads.

If one is going to take Kenney's racism insinuation seriously, then the only nations NATO can act to save from violent aggression and genocide are those outside its purview (with the possible exception of Turkey), since ALL the nations within NATO's purview except Turkey are white--as least as I understand how Kenney is using the term "white" here. Kenney's insinuation reduces itself to the notion that NATO is a racist institution dedicated to the survival of white people. If that is the case, NATO should be abolished and I look forward to George Kenney following through on his principles and his stated position, and calling for the immediate abolition of NATO.

In a separate posting I will trace the history of the term genocide, its use in the Geneva conventions, its definition (which Kenney never gives and does not seem to know) and what Rafael Lemkin, the man who coined the term "genocide" meant by it. I will then take up the two ways of trivializing the Holocaust. First, by comparing anything and everything to it. Secondly, be walling it off in such uniqueness that "Never Again" means only that never again will Nazis under Adolf Hitler, with the collaboration of Europe, kill six-million European Jews in WW2 between 1941 and 1945.

It was in part to avoid these twin trivializations of the Holocaust that the careful definition of genocide by Rafael Lemkin was composed, and to understand who the "ethnic cleansing" carried out by the Serb army is genocide, we need to turn to Lemkin's discussion of what genocide actually means..

Mike