<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Brad DeLong wrote:</FONT></P>
<P>Consider Chomsky's claim that: "In the early 1990s, primarily for cynical
great power reasons, the U.S. selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan
clients..." On its face this is ludicrous. When the United States selects
clients for cynical great power reasons, it selects strong clients--not ones
whose unarmed men are rounded up and shot by the thousands. And Bosnian Muslims
as a key to U.S. politico-military strategy in Europe? As Bismarck said more
than a century ago, "There is nothing in the Balkans that is worth the bones of
a single Pomeranian grenadier." It holds true today as well: the U.S. has no
strategic or security interest in the Balkans that is worth the death of a
single Carolinian fire-control technician. U.S. intervention in the Balkans in
the 1990s was "humanitarian" in origin and intention (even if we can argue about
its effect). Only a nut-boy loon would argue otherwise.</P>
<P>But whenever I ask the Chomskyites why he would claim that, "In the early
1990s, primarily for cynical great power reasons, the US selected Bosnian
Muslims as their Balkan clients..." I get one or more of three responses:</P>
<UL>
<LI>It was said in haste in an interview--it's not representative of his
thought.
<LI>Of course the U.S. selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients for
great power reasons! Mineral wealth! Oil pipelines!
<LI>Yes, he's made some mistakes. And he refuses to back down or make
concessions when he is wrong. But it's more than counterbalanced by the
stunning quality of his insights! </LI></UL>
<DIV>---</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Only a nut-boy would say there were power-political
motives behind US policy in Bosnia? Then the Bush and Clinton admionistration
were full of nutboys:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>New York Times</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>May 27, 1992</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Why the U.S. Now Leans on Belgrade</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>The immediate motive for sharper United States words and actions against
the authorities in Belgrade in the Yugoslav conflict is revulsion at the killing
of civilians and other violence by Serbian forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
<BR><BR>Beyond this, Administration officials said today, is the growing
perception that the war in the Balkans has become a test for the United States
and its principal allies on how to deal with security threats in post-Communist
Europe. "The biggest factor is the events on the ground, the atrocities against
civilians, the ethnic purification drive by the Serbs in Bosnia," said a senior
Administration official long involved in Balkan affairs. "But it has also become
a defining moment on what kind of European security system we are going to have.
There is an absence of U.S. power, an absence of power generally. People are
worried that the whole area is going to pot." <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[...]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"We're looking at the first time since the 1930's that the United States
deliberately stayed out of a European conflict," the official added. "It is a
shift in U.S. policy. Earlier when confronting a security crisis, we would have
become involved quite deeply. <BR><BR>"Our vital interests are not what they
used to be. The third Balkan war in this century introduces the security problem
of the future and there is no institution for defense or security to deal with
it." <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Paul R. S. Gebhard, <I>The United States and European Security</I>, Adelphi
Paper 286 (International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, February,
1994), cited by Peter Gowan: </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Paul Gebhard, Director for Policy Planning in the Pentagon, explains the
position at this time. The West Europeans were trying to develop 'a European
Security and Defence Identity in the WEU outside NATO. US criticism of European
institutions, however, can only be credible if European policies are
unsuccessful.'(24) And he goes on to point out that the key European policy was
the UN/EC Vance-Owen plan for Bosnia. He goes on: <BR>"The EC claimed the
lead in setting Western policy at the start of the Yugoslav crisis...The
Europeans may have thought that Vance's participation as the US representative
was sufficient to commit the US to whatever policy developed. By having a former
Secretary of State on the team, they may have expected to bring the US into the
negotiations without having to work with officials in Washington. This approach
reflects a desire in European capitals for 'Europe' to set the political agenda
without official US participation on issues of European security."<BR>Gebhard
goes on to describe the trip of Vance and Owen to Washington in February 1993 to
try to persuade the US of their plan. <BR>"Vance and Owen argued that the
deal.....was the best that could be crafted (implying that US participation
would not have produced a better deal for the Muslims)...Without its
participation, the Clinton administration was not committed politically to the
plan....." <BR>This is an understatement on Gebhard's part: the Clinton
administration was committed politically against the plan because it was an
independent EU plan. And by quietly undermining the plan it successfully
undermined West European attempts at independent European leadership. As Gebhard
explains: <BR>"Because of the situation in Bosnia, the EC was unable to set the
agenda for European security without the full participation of the United
States....The political influence and military power of the US remain essential
to security arrangements in Europe." <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Seth</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>