An Interview with the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia

An Interview with the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Mr. James Bissett
Serbianna – October 22, 2004

Canadian Ambassador: Bush a better choice
Ottawa - Oct. 22, 2004

“…From a Serb point of view a Kerry’s victory is the worst that might happen for them, their interests and the Balkans.”

With American Serbs comprising a little over million votes in what appears to be another closely-contested US presidential election, Serbian American Voters’ League has launched a number of initiatives as part of its public education campaign -- Serbs for Bush -- to empower American Serbs to become part of the democratic process and vote for Bush.

To understand why a Republican or Bush’s foreign policy would be better for the Serbs then that of Democrat candidate John Kerry, we are joined by Mr. James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia and one of the leading experts on the Balkans affairs.

What has been the American foreign policy like in the Balkans since 1992?

Bissett: You can sum it up in a few words. American foreign policy in the Balkans has been disastrous, particularly for the Serbian people. The initial signs of the early break-up of Yugoslavia were ignored by the USA. That country was preoccupied with other things, such as the collapse of the USSR and the first Iraq war. At the last moment- the eleventh hour- they tried to keep Yugoslavia together. It was a halfhearted attempt. Secretary of States, James Baker was dispatched to Belgrade to try and convince the leaders of the various Republics to stay together, but his mission failed. The Americans then pretty well gave up on the idea of the united Yugoslavia and later yielded to Germany’s insistence that early recognition be given to the independence of Croatia and Slovenia.

Later the policy followed by the United States in Bosnia was absolutely guaranteed to cause civil war there. When Ambassador Zimmerman flew to Sarajevo and persuaded Izetbegovic to renege on the Lisbon Agreement that had been signed in March 1992 between the three sides in Bosnia; violence and bloodshed was inevitable. The Muslim side was urged to go ahead with the referendum on independence and this was a guarantee for civil war causing death and dislocation for thousands of people.

After Bosnia we have the example of the bombing of Yugoslavia over Kosovo. The strategy of the Americans was to try to overthrow President Milosevic and to give NATO a reason for continued existence. The bombing campaign not only destroyed the infrastructure and economy of Yugoslavia and killed hundreds of people, it also cause serious instability throughout the Balkans. It has been disastrous policy and it hasn’t ended yet.

As you know there is an election coming up in Kosovo on October 23. There is a clear sign that the Americans and Europeans are on a course to grant independence to the Albanians in Kosovo. If this happens, Albanian nationalism will spread into Macedonia, parts of Serbia and Montenegro and even northern Greece. We will have serious problems if not outright military conflict in the Balkans again. So, the American foreign policy here has been a total disaster.

Is it fair to say that the Balkans was the main focus of American foreign policy under the Democrats, i.e. during the Clinton Administration; whereas the Bush Administration has shifted its foreign policy to the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Bissett: I think you know that many Canadians believe that the Democrats, because of their emphasis on human rights, would be a preferable government to a Republican one. Canadians are also upset because the Republicans under Mr. Bush attacked Iraq without UN approval. Many believe the Democrats are less warlike than the Republicans might be but people have short memories.

It was Clinton who invaded Haiti, who bombed the pharmacy in Sudan, who led NATO in the bombing of the Serbs in Bosnia. It was the Democrats under Clinton who attacked and bombed Serbia without UN approval. People seem to have forgotten that. In addition, it seems clear to me that if the Democrats get back into power in the next election, we are going to find the same old “Serb-hating” gang in power. That is: Madlene Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Wesley Clark and a number of others. These are all people who are very much anti - Serb. Holbrooke’s book and his remarks [1] about the Serbs are clearly racist. All these individuals are committed to a Greater Albania in the Balkans. The Kerry election campaign is also getting a tremendous amount of funding by the Albanians.

Dutch Television showed a documentary produced by KLA [2], with KLA members in a room in New York City giving cheques to Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark. It showed Richard Holbrooke phoning a man by the name Philips, telling him they collected great amount of money. The figure of US $ 500.000 was mentioned. It is very clear that if they are in power, the Democrats will demand the independence for Kosovo.

People seemed to have forgotten that the Democrats under Clinton had bombed Iraq for as long as they were in power?

Bissett: Absolutely. In fact it was Albright who in 1997 urged that sanctions against Saddam not be lifted until he was disposed. And it was Clinton who bombed Iraq in the so-called no fly zone for many years. The Democrats have been just as hawkish and warlike as the Republicans.

Kerry’s policy says the following on Kosovo: "Kosovo's future status should be decided as soon as possible, in accordance United Nations resolution 1244. The people of Kosovo must be able to determine their ownfuture, including how they want to be governed."

What does it mean in the light of over 200.000 expelled Serbs from Kosovo province, after 2000 killed Serbs and over 130 destroyed Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries in Kosovo by the Albanians?

Bissett: It means independence for the Albanians in Kosovo. It isironic that John Kerry would mention UN Resolution 1244 as if that Resolution has been fully respected and enacted by NATO and the United Nations. The fact is that Resolution 1244 has been violated from the verybeginning. 1244 called for the disarmament of the KLA and other Albanianarmed groups. This did not happen. We know that the KLA were handing in a few shotguns. We know that the Americans converted the KLA into theKosovo Protection Force and made that criminal organization responsible for the implementation of law and order in Kosovo. The Americans appointed Agim Ceku, an alleged war criminal, as the head of the Kosovo Protection Force. Resolution 1244 authorized the return to Kosovo of Serbian military and security forces to help clear minefields, maintain a presence on theborder, and guard Serbian religious sites. These provisions of Resolution 1244 have never been honored. Resolution 1244 called for establishment of Kosovo as a multi ethnic society with guaranteed safety for all the inhabitants. Yet, 2000 Serbs have been murdered there and yet nobody has been charged. Almost all of non-Albanians inhabitants of Kosovo, including Muslim Slavs, have been expelled from Kosovo, except from the northern part around Mitrovica.

The truth is that UN Resolution 1244 has not been honored at all. To use 1244 for the future status of Kosovo is nonsense. What Kerry’s policy advisors really mean, is that Albanian self-determination will be realized and that Kosovo will get its independence in one form or the other.

When American Serb vote on November 2, 2004 should they focus primarily on the impact of Kerry’s advisors, such as Albright, Holbrooke [3], Clark, et al.? Is there a different angle to this gloomy picture?

Bissett: They are same old gang that will be back. Bush’s government on the other hand is preoccupied by Iraq and the Middle East. They have already indicated that they would like to pull out the remaining American troops from Bosnia. The Balkans is not the center of Bush’s foreign policy. Republicans do not expect to get votes from Albanian Americans and certainly not any financial assistance. From a Serb point of view a Kerry’s victory is the worst that might happen for them, for their interests, and for the Balkans.

Boba Borojevic, producer

CKCU 93.1 FM

1) Holbrooke flatly asserts that the Serbs were not "rational people with whom one could argue, negotiate, compromise, and agree... they respected only force or an unambiguous and credible threat to use it"
http://news.suc.org/bydate/2001/Aug_02/4.html

2) KLA – Video :

http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/18793157/
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/kerry101804.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/121818.stm
http://www.beotel.yu/~pejin/chrono.html

3) Holbrooke : http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38013fa77544.htm