Why Bosnia Matters 1 - Christopher Hitchens

Here Christopher Hitchens lectures on the failure of the international community to deal with the Bosnian crisis. It should be noted that this speech was given on Mar 4 1994, while the Bosnian war was still going on, and more than a year before the Srebrenica massacre.

Hitchens' position on the matter is clear the international community (e.g. UN, NATO, and US forces) should use military force to intervene in the region and prevent genocide. Eventually there was an intervention, but not until aproximately 200,000 were killed. It's interesting to note that this seems to be the first real departure between Hitchens and the Left.

I have set this speech to vaguely relevant images.

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e351Soi0E1c

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• United
• Nations
• Bosnia
• Serbia
• Kosovo
• Hitchens
• Chomsky
• war
• crimes
• genocide
• politics
• commentary
• analysis
• news
• documentary

[hexag1]

yes, point taken. I didn't really feel like giving a short history in the info box.

[dreamsofredspring]

I don't understand why in your description you say this represents a departure of Hitchens from the left. Both in western Europe and in the US, the left was pro-intervention in Bosnia from the very beginning, while the conservative forces (George Bush sr. administration in US, John Major in the UK) were anti-interventionist. The doctrine of liberal intervention under which Bosnia and Kosovo interventions were undertaken is a center-left doctrine.

[hexag1]

Its a bit much to say that the Left was 'pro-intervention' There were quite a few on a left that were pro-intervention, but 'few' is the key word there. Most ignored it altogether. Meanwhile Chomsky et. al. condemned the Milosevic regime and..... argued that its removal was an act of aggressive western imperialism. This is the kind of mentality that sees 9/11 attacks as strictly morally equivalent as say, the Clinton era rocketing of the Al-Shifa chemical plant in Sudan.

[dreamsofredspring]

I am not talking about Chomsky-type paranoid left that blames the West for all the world's problems. I am talking about the maintstream European and American left (including many within the trockist left) that were pro-intervention (much like the non-stalinist left was pro-intervention in the 30s). And its pretty clear that the bulk of anti-interventionist forces were on the right at that time.

And also, while not equivalent to 9/11, the Clinton bombing in Sudan was still a war crime.

[hexag1]

OK perhaps we agree more than we differ.

It seems to me, though, that the kind of argument made against the intervention by the far right, and the 'mainstream' left is the same kind of argument now made against the US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this sense there is a line of rhetorical descent from the between the two, and a certain overlap in the political demographic. I think I single out Chomsky b/c he is the prime example.

[david552]

WANTED: Radovan Karadzic

Found, extradited, on trial.

String him up!

[truestefq]

This was not really "departure between the left and Hitchens'", rather a schism inside the left, into a small intellectual "realist left" and a large "post-modernist left" (that kept the power in the structures and publications thanks to popular prejudice and witchhunt): Bernard Kouchner, Joschka Fischer are examples in Europe who where confronted with this kind of post-stalinist mob inside their own groups. Read Nick Cohens "What's left" for the arguments as well as Pascal Bruckner.

[MrOceanPenguin]

@hellsunicorn Contesting your nonsense, yes - contesting your "truth", no.

Apropos illogical sentiments, how in the world did you come to the conclusion that I consider Hitchens an idol?

[hellsunicorn]

@MrOceanPenguin You just spent 2 posts contesting me. Big time logic fail there, but not surprising from an admirer of the dearly departed bishop of atheistkult.

[MrOceanPenguin]

@hellsunicorn There is no truth to your point (consider that an euphemism for nonsense) so there's absolutely nothing for me to contest.

[hellsunicorn]

@MrOceanPenguin Ah, but you didn't contest the truth of my point, so I thank you for agreeing with me. And my condolences regarding the death of your idol. Sorry to say that I absolutely hated Hitchens (as would any other rational human being who researches some of the revolting rot he has said about 19th and 20th century history) and that will never change. Agree to disagree I guess.

[MrOceanPenguin]

@hellsunicorn Absolute nonsense. Your "point" is as valid as a fart in a hurricane.

[MrOceanPenguin]

I wish people would create subtitles for Christopher's speeches. He is very eloquent but way too verbose for my comprehension.

[ConsolesR3worked]

GO CHRIS ! LOVE FROM BOSNIANS

[hellsunicorn]

@albertjenajbolji (cont.) And just to bring my point home. Christopher Hitchens has zero problem with genocide when it's happening to people like the Russian Orthodox Church, because those are people that he has a personal hatred of. His problem with Bosniaks being killed is because they shared his secular socialist ideology, nothing more. I was dancing the jig like a proud Irish exile when I found out this foul-mouthed bastard was finally dead.

[hellsunicorn]

@albertjenajbolji (cont.) There is a good case to be made that this all could have been avoided if the Ottoman's had kept to their own borders, or better yet, if someone had killed Mohammed before he wrote the Qu'ran. But in absence of the ideal, I think a good case can be made that Muslims and Christians should not be forced under the same state system, or any other divergent groups, the results of this misguided idea of pluralism speaks for itself.

[hellsunicorn]

@albertjenajbolji Not necessarily, but the way that most apply the concept of genocide, essentially any war can be qualified as such. We're just getting around to actually considering the Armenian Genocide for what it was, and there the intent was much more clear. All I am seeing out of Milosevic is a passionate speech about a former Serbian King who dared to stand against the very much genocidal Ottoman's, and the Bosniaks being a remnant of that attempt at genocide.