home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=92TT1326>
- <title>
- June 15, 1992: Sarajevo Burns. Will We Learn?
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992
- June 15, 1992 How Sam Walton Got Rich
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- ESSAY, Page 78
- Sarajevo Burns. Will We Learn?
- </hdr><body>
- <p>By Charles Krauthammer
- </p>
- <p> By May 13, the fighting in Sarajevo had become intolerable.
- Accordingly, U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
- announced that the bulk of U.N. forces in Sarajevo were pulling
- out. The U.N., he said, simply cannot operate in a place where
- there is no political will for peace. "Peacekeeping must be
- based on the agreement of all parties."
- </p>
- <p> But when all the parties agree, one already has peace. It
- is when the parties don't agree and are killing each other that
- peacekeeping is needed. But at that point the U.N. gets out.
- </p>
- <p> Sarajevo burns and the world watches. The first serious
- shooting war to erupt in the heart of Europe in 40 years elicits
- protests and admonitions, Security Council resolutions and
- embargoes, but nothing that stops the carnage. In Croatia, where
- a U.N. cease-fire is supposed to have ended the fighting, the
- historic city of Dubrovnik has just taken its most fearful
- artillery pounding in six months. Bosnia is terrorized. And the
- U.N. blue helmets head for safe ground.
- </p>
- <p> This is not cowardice. This is realism. The U.N. troops
- refuse to immolate themselves doing a job that they inherently
- cannot do. It is the kind of realism that America could use to
- pierce some of the fantasies that have arisen in U.S. thinking
- about the post-Soviet world. The chief fantasy is that the U.S.,
- indeed the world, can now rely on "collective security" and its
- agency, the U.N., for its safety and security.
- </p>
- <p> Yugoslavia is exactly the kind of conflict that collective
- security was supposed to address: small, isolated, manageable,
- involving none of the great powers. Yet as Lord Carrington,
- mediator for another would-be agency of collective security (the
- European Community), admitted, "It is very difficult to see what
- can be done while they go on fighting."
- </p>
- <p> Precisely. U.N., E.C. and all the other entries in the
- dictionary of collective security (c.s.c.e., oas, etc., etc.)
- are powerless in the face of fighting. They keep the peace only
- in places where hostilities have already ended, places like the
- Golan Heights and Cyprus, where neither party is intent, at
- least today, on going to war. Yet we know from history that as
- soon as one or the other party changes its mind, all bets are
- off. In May 1967, Egypt, preparing war against Israel, ordered
- the U.N. to get its peacekeeping troops out of Sinai. Within
- days they were gone. Within three weeks the war was on.
- </p>
- <p> If the U.N. can, at best, only keep peace, who is to make
- peace? Who is to stop the fighting, halt the aggression? The
- answer is simple: the world's one great power -- the United
- States -- joined by whatever friends choose to help.
- </p>
- <p> Consider the gulf war, by now totally misunderstood. New
- York Times columnist Leslie Gelb writes, "If the Persian Gulf
- war promised a new era of collective responsibility, Yugoslavia
- heralds its early demise." But the gulf war promised no new era
- of collective responsibility. The gulf war was no more
- collective than the Korean War, also fought under the U.N. flag.
- It was not the U.N. that reversed Saddam's conquest of Kuwait.
- It was the U.S. Army, based in Saudi Arabia, helped by Britain
- and France. Everything else was window dressing.
- </p>
- <p> The gulf war helped create the illusion that in the
- post-Soviet world the U.N., representing a world aroused, would
- secure the peace and put down threats. Yugoslavia exposes the
- emptiness of that dream. Today, as always, threats are met and
- conflicts halted by the great powers, and most decisively by the
- one dominant power, the United States. The U.S. intervened
- decisively in the gulf and, for months, washed its hands of
- Yugoslavia. That more than anything else explains why Kuwait
- thrives and Sarajevo burns.
- </p>
- <p> Two weeks ago, the first signs appeared that the world
- might indeed begin to stir on Yugoslavia. The Security Council
- imposed a trade embargo on Serbia and Montenegro. What happened?
- A spontaneous eruption of collective action?
- </p>
- <p> Hardly. What happened was that the U.S. changed its
- policy. After months of ostentatiously letting the European
- Community try to handle the Yugoslav crisis collectively, the
- U.S. came to the conclusion 1) that Europe was hopeless and 2)
- that the crisis was beginning to reach proportions that could
- directly threaten the entire Balkan region. Unstopped Serbian
- aggression might lead to war with Albania, Greek intervention
- in Macedonia and, most catastrophically, the involvement of
- Muslim, pro-Western Turkey.
- </p>
- <p> That is why the U.S. moved. And because the U.S. moved, so
- did the U.N. No one, however, expects that sanctions will force
- Serbia out of Bosnia. The tragedy of Sarajevo will probably
- continue until the ethnic hatreds play themselves out. Or until
- the conflict does indeed begin to engulf the entire region. At
- which point the U.S., with others trailing, will intervene.
- Undoubtedly, it will all be done under U.N. cover. Another
- victory will be declared for collective security. Don't be
- fooled.
- </p>
- <p> There is no such thing as collective security. There is no
- reality behind the facade of U.N. "peacekeeping." The U.N. comes
- to life only when animated -- manipulated -- by the U.S.
- </p>
- <p> This is not a preferred state of affairs for Americans.
- Americans do not thirst for hegemony. Our most urgent hope after
- any conflict -- most lately, Kuwait -- is to get out, go home
- and disarm. And hope some other agency will keep the peace in
- our absence. America would rather be Canada. But Canada can only
- be Canada because it lives under the American umbrella. Who will
- hold an umbrella over us? Boutros Boutros-Ghali?
- </p>
- <p> Would that he could. Alas, there is no safety for us, for
- anyone, in collective security. If you doubt that, ask the
- widows of Sarajevo. Ask the refugees scouring the skies for a
- sign of the real peacekeepers, the U.S. Air Force.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-