We have been treated to terrible pictures of cruelty in the civil war in Kosovo: Pictures which remind one of the slaughter of pro-Western tribesmen by the U.N. forces in Katanga in the early 1960's; or the massacre of religious dissidents at Waco, Texas; or the actions of so-called "freedom fighters" in other conflicts all over the World. Yet cruelty which pales in comparison with the millions slaughtered in the former Communist Russia, or the tens of millions slaughtered in Red China.
For the sake of this essay, we will assume that the reports of atrocities in the Kosovo civil war are true--and yet one must acknowledge a nagging doubt. In 1914, those who wanted to involve America in Europe's endless struggles, inflamed opinion among us with tales of German atrocities--atrocities dreamed up by propagandists in London, who told us that the Kaiser's army were even cutting off the ears of Belgian school children. But there was no truth in the reports.
There are and have been atrocities in this world, since the dawn of man. Yet no one has ever anointed the United States of America as the guardians of mankind against the cruelty of their neighbors.
No one in the world has even recognized an independent Kosovo. Kosovo is universally recognized as a part of Serbia, and as a part of Serbia, part of the Yugoslavian Federation. This is far more truly a Civil War than our own unpleasantness of the 1860s, where sovereign States clashed over the right of the Southern States to withdraw. Kosovo, as part of the Serbian State, does not have anywhere near so legitimate a claim to secede as had South Carolina or Virginia. To demand that Serbia allow a foreign army on its soil to end its own civil war, is tantamount to a demand for unconditional Serbian surrender to the foreign powers that make that demand. Obviously, no freedom loving Serb, would ever agree to such an occupation.
As noted in our March essay, the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief does not go beyond the use of force to defend American interests. As even Alexander Hamilton, that exponent of a strong Federal Government, observed in the Federalist (No. 69), the powers of the President with respect to the use of military force, are in no way equivalent to those of the British monarch. Moreover, as documented in that essay and elsewhere, without a specific Congressional authorization, the military can only be used defensively to protect specific American interests.
But America has no interest being threatened by the Serbs. Until we began to wage aggressive war against them, they showed respect for our property, and welcomed our tourists. They had been our ally in World War II; and even though under a Communist Government at the time, they remained neutral through much of the Cold War.
We may have sympathies in the Civil War in Kosovo; we have no Constitutionally permissible role! If the British, Dutch and Spanish Monarchies chose to intervene without us, those sympathies might keep us from protesting their aggression. But that would be the extent of a legitimate U.S. role. We are a bystander. We can never legally be more than a bystander.
American foreign policy up until the world-wide threats posed in this century by Communism, and for a time the Axis powers of World War II, was formulated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Basically, it was to avoid "entangling alliances," and to steer clear of Europe's endless conflicts. "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence... the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake," our first President warned, and up until the First World War, Americans of all political persuasions heeded him well.
This policy has been falsely labeled one of "isolation." But it was never anything of the sort. We sought commercial relations, based upon mutual respect, with all the peoples of the earth. Indeed, we were so far from being isolationists, that it was Americans who persuaded the Japanese to end their own three centuries of isolation in the Nineteenth Century. But it did mean that we did not rush off to support European adventures, whether altruistic or misanthropic. To the extent we deviated from that policy to create N.A.T.O., it was for the purpose of fighting a world wide Communist conspiracy to take over the earth. Crushing Serbia is not consistent with that purpose.
The preposterous claim that we act in pursuit of world peace; that there is somehow less danger for escalating the Civil War, if an alliance of 19 mostly larger powers--only one of which has a common border with Serbia--rain death and destruction on Serbia from the skies; that we avoid a regional conflagration which might eventually jeopardize our interests, by launching our own vastly greater regional conflagration, scarcely needs an answer. That most of those 19 powers have Social Democratic governments, which expound a utilitarian rather than a moral basis for their societies, may provide some insight.
At this website we defended President Clinton on the impeachment issue, because he lied in answer to questions he should not have even considered answering: Questions, which should never have been asked! But almost no one in America would seriously dispute the statement that the President is a pathological liar. And his justification for our involvement in the airborne reign of terror over the Balkans, should be viewed in the same light as Adolph Hitler's justification for ruling by decree, after either a Communist or a Nazi provocative agent burned the Reichstag. There was no rational reason why the German Parliament could not have met at an alternative site immediately thereafter; but the German Socialist leader used the excuse to make himself absolute dictator.
Serbia's refusal to allow a foreign occupation of its soil is in no sense an act of aggression. It in no way threatens its neighbors. That Clinton would twist the obvious to justify a war against Serbia--would insult our intelligence by suggesting that it is continuing Serbian aggression which forces him to continue the bombing--ought to offend any sense of fairness yet among us.
But the danger now is no longer just to the Serbians. The principle of the aggressive preventive strike for "peace"--given the political newspeak of our times--is a prescription for the forced imposition of World Government upon Mankind. And very frankly, at this web site, we do not view the Clintonian version that much more favorably than the Communist or Nazi version, defeated earlier. The Administration rushed to show their true colors, years ago, when a still unexplained airline crash was trotted out as justification for an attempt to further restrict the freedom of American citizens on the pretense of fighting terrorism. Does anyone believe they will not move in that direction, as the present conflict escalates?! But consider the following incontrovertible facts:
1. Serbia is being bombed from bases many hundreds and even thousands of miles away. When the Serbs try to hit back at the forces of their attackers in a neighboring country (Bosnia), they are accused of being the one's trying to escalate the war!
2. The Socialist Government of Germany under Hitler was many very bad things; but their armed forces, trained in a military tradition which long predated the Socialists, were first rate. In most of the occupied nations, the Nazi's had to deal with resistance movements: Patriots who committed clandestine acts of sabotage against their conquerors. In occupied Yugoslavia, it was quite different. The Yugoslavs never even surrendered. Although their homeland was overrun in 1941, there remained two Yugoslavian armies in the field, in Yugoslavia, throughout the War! Those people do not quit. (Of course, as every school boy used to know, World War I started in 1914, when Serbia refused to yield to an Austrian ultimatum.)
Does anyone really believe that President Clinton, draft evader and self-indulgent word merchant, is going to break a spirit the Germans could not shake?!
3. Russia, unprepared for a major War in 1914, felt compelled to go to War for Serbia. There remains tremendous sympathy and identification with the Serbs in modern Russia.
Granted that Russia is bankrupt. Granted that her present Government is incredibly weak. She is still better armed, by far, than she was in 1914. And she has elections coming in the not too distant future.
4. There are a number of fairly strong figures in the Russian political configuration, who are reported to have Napoleonic aspirations.
5. There has been a considerable movement to rediscover roots and heritage in post-Communist Russia.
6. The image of a small Slavic nation, standing up to all the major non-Slavic White nations, can only be an inspiration for those who would promote a great pan-Slavic movement.
7. The Napoleonic wars started as a French counterattack against the European allies, who sought to intervene in the French Revolution--also a Civil War. That intervention rallied a nation every bit as bankrupt and divided as modern Russia; and under inspiring leadership, turned her into a military colossus.
Does anyone really need us to spell out what all this could mean for the Russian Government in the next election--if not before then by non-elective processes? Perhaps President Clinton and British Fabian Tony Blair are so deep into that old "parlor pink" Fabian mindset, that they cannot even appreciate the potential fire storm.
But one does not need to speculate on so dramatic a fall out. People in the Balkans have incredibly long, inherited memories. Even now, scores which go back centuries are being settled. Because Clinton has involved America in this debacle; because we have provided the principal muscle for the N.A.T.O. intrusion, Serbs for generations to come are going to hate Americans. There is little doubt but that individual Americans yet unborn will find themselves in the wrong place, at the wrong time; and will pay a terrible personal price for Clinton's aggression.
It is also probable, highly probable, that Serbian military personnel will succeed in blowing up some major U.S. buildings before we finally see the end of this. As millions of illegal aliens can attest, our borders are not secure. And when the likely happens, we can be sure that this Administration will respond with a stepped up effort to disarm America. They have already shown their colors on that issue, many times. From airline crashes, to Waco, to even the shootings prompted by teenage rage in the age when the "politically correct" would strip away the teenager's raison d`etre, any excuse to disarm the free has been eagerly pursued.
There is one other perfectly obvious point to be made. Outnumbered over 70 times over by their better equipped attackers, the Serbian people will lash out in frustration at the very people for whom Clinton and Blair feign solicitude. And that was obvious before the first bomb fell. Dare one to suggest that unless they are both idiots, their concern was to vindicate a new "World Order," not to save the Albanians in Kosovo? We dare! Today innocent Albanians are dying precisely because of the NATO attacks. Admittedly, some of them might have been killed anyway. Yet we are haunted by the memory of how the Administration justified the butchery at Waco. The feds went in, we were told, because they were concerned about the "safety" of the women and children!!
It is not unreasonable to suspect that the Serbian reaction in Kosovo was not only anticipated before the first bomb fell, but was actually precisely what was intended for propaganda purposes; intended to provide those in that Fabian mindset with a salable justification for a much greater level of military involvement. Since the days of Col. House in the Wilson Administration, there have been documented studies of attempts by British Internationalists to involve us ever more closely in their foreign policy objectives. The very last thing these men would want, would be for America to return to the ways of the Fathers.
The Fabian Socialists in Britain have sold their wares by deliberate deception since the end of the last Century. Clinton avoided the draft by studying in Britain. It was not the right wing that he was associated with! There are too many possible foundations for duplicity in this confluence of factors, just to accept that these men are acting out of incompetence or stupidity. We may well see the unfolding of a Fabian plot to promote World Government.
Life is, and has always been, very cruel for many of the world's people. No compassionate person can view human history, and not find many reasons to weep. By persuasion, respect, and compassion, we can perhaps make a difference. But all the Clinton and the Blair policy can offer mankind is a universality of misery. Good men go to war, because there are things in life worth dying for. If you take away their right to make that choice, you may leave them with nothing in life worth living for.