Galbraith: Op Storm no ethnic cleansing

Galbraith will not accept that Operation Storm was deliberate ethnic cleansing because that would mean the United States were responsible for war crimes, i.e. failing to use their influence to stop war crimes from taking place if they have information that such crimes are likely to exist.

Galbraith already admits that the US has 'foreknowledge' of the attack on the Krajina, but ignores the role of the US governement through MPRI (Military Professional Resources Incorporated), a company set up by the US intelligence and military community outside the recall of congress (much like they have done in many other cases of which 'Air America' being the most famous), even though its members came straight from various US military and intelligence services, techncally 'retired' though retaining links and information with their 'former' colleagues who provided them with satellite imagery, communication intercepts and other forms of military information that could only come from official US sources, used to prepare operation storm for the Croats.

Operation Storm would not have been possible without direct help from the US governement and its allies who provided the intelligence and weapons either directly and via proxies.

The fact that Galbraith is testifying at the UN on a very tight leash "in the presence of a U.S. government representative".

Gotovina's defense lawyer, Greg Kehoe has previously worked for and has strong links to the Pentagon.

Galbraith's testimony is useless he can be freely cross-examined, which is certainly not the case here.

This just goes to show who pulls the strings at the ICTY.

Aleks,

Actually, I think Galbraith’s statements are worth noting, his legal opinion of what is or is not ethnic cleansing are irrelevant at best, that’s clearly a legal decision and has nothing to do with what he says.

Here’s what he said.

"You cannot ethnically cleanse somebody who is no longer there, although it doesn’t mean that the Croatian forces would not have done it if the Serbs had remained there,"

So we’re all in agreement that the Serbs WOULD have been ethnically cleansed had they stayed.

So the question becomes why did the Serbs leave?

Galbraith puts it lamely, using the standard nationalistic excuse we hear so much, “the Serb Republic of Krajina (RSK) authorities are responsible for the Serbs’ departure "because they had urged the population to leave". All sides in the Balkans make an attempt to use this kind of logic and reasoning, and it only encourages further acts of ethnic cleansing. If allowed to continue unchallenged it will only result in a “loop hole” for ethnic cleansing and we’ll see the lives of minorities made so miserable that they feel they have to flee or face destruction.

However, here we have a grain of the truth and really what is the important part, Šušak "admitted to Galbraith that the Croatian authorities engaged in psychological warfare that partly contributed to the exodus".

Galbraith also states Tudjman "was not ashamed of his views and… spoke favorably of the so-called humane transfer of population".

Here we have a first person witness to a statement by members of the Croatian government about how they went about causing the ethnic cleansing. Clearly this shows motivation.

Now that we’ve established motivation, did the actions of the Croatian government so severe as to cause the Serbs to flee?

Clearly the use of symbols reminiscent of the Ustashe regime contributed to this. A grim reminder that the terrible fate that befell the previous generation might happen again.

Then we had the crimes that occurred in the Medak pocket. Even Galbraith says the US administration warned “The atrocities like those committed in the Medak Pocket in 1993 were not to be repeated”.

Clearly the Serbs were assured a similar fate had they stayed.

In fact the Serbs that stayed were killed and all the homes were destroyed.

Had the Serbs left, and all was clear and they came immediately back, then the claim they left on their own accord would have some validity, but the fact that the Croatian government made it IMPOSSIBLE to come back by destroying everything, that they engaged in actions and earlier crimes in order to scare the Serbs into abandoning all their possessions and former lives makes it seem highly likely to me that this is a clear cut case of ethnic cleansing, the worst ethnic cleansing of the war, celebrated as a national holiday in Croatia!

So the question remains. Under international law, how should the Serbs of Croatia have been expected to behave? Should they have been expected to just lay down and wait for the end? Is that really what this world is coming to? Is that what we want to be acceptable behavior in the future?

Peter himself was on one of those tanks that went into knin. There are pictures of this. He is just as respondsible.

Not 'ethnic cleansing' Mr Galbraith?

> In his view, the Serb Republic of Krajina (RSK) authorities are responsible for the Serbs’ departure "because they had urged the population to leave".

So this diplomat is basically saying that in order for this crime to be technically a case of ethnic cleansing, serb population should have stayed & been massacred.

Got news for you Galbraith - then crime is called genocide.

And regarding US complicity?

Galbraith lays ALL blame on the croatian civilian leadership & on it's military...
whilst taking none of the blame on behalf of the US...
despite foreknowledge, & 'covert' assistance in the preparation & execution of 'Operation Storm'.

If a solicitor tried to use this defence in a criminal case, he'd be disbarred for incompetency, & his client would be found equally guilty of the crime committed.

And a comparable result here would be that the US would be found along with Croatia, equally guilty on the charge of the ethnic cleansing of an entire ethnic population.

This is a terrible article.

Serbs writing for Serbs.

Let's really get it right, shall we? Peter Galbraith said Operation Storm was not ethnic cleansing - "not in the way the Serbs had done ethnic cleansing." He said Knin was not shelled - "in the way the Serbs had shelled Vukovar or Dubrovnik."

As an American, I have to say that I am proud that the US had the balls to step in and put a stop to this war when the rest of the world, specifically the UN, just sat by and let Karadzic and Mladic run their rampage across Bosnia, and, if they had gotten their hands on Bihac, across Croatia as well.

You speak of what "would have" happened to the Krajina Serbs had they stayed? Let's talk about what "did" happen to the Srebrenica muslims when the Serb army got to them. Oh, you probably don't want me to mention that.

I'm sorry, what "would have" "might have" happened is irrelevant. You can't charge someone with a crime for what you think they "may" do. The facts are that Operation Storm was undertaken to restore the territorial integrity of the borders of Croatia, to stop the take over of Bihac and push the Bosnian Serb army back and bring about the Dayton Peace Accords. That was the objective - that was the result. The Serb Krajina leadership is responsible for the 180,000 Serbs leaving Croatia (since when did the number 250,000 EVER appear anywhere before???). How many Croatians and Muslims have been allowed to return to Republika Srpska in Bosnia? I doubt even a fraction of the people who were ethnically cleansed by the Serbs have been allowed to return to their homes.

That is why Croatia is on the path to EU membership and Nato membership and Serbia is, well......

This is a terrible article.

Serbs writing for Serbs.

Let's really get it right, shall we? Peter Galbraith said Operation Storm was not ethnic cleansing - "not in the way the Serbs had done ethnic cleansing." He said Knin was not shelled - "in the way the Serbs had shelled Vukovar or Dubrovnik."

As an American, I have to say that I am proud that the US had the balls to step in and put a stop to this war when the rest of the world, specifically the UN, just sat by and let Karadzic and Mladic run their rampage across Bosnia, and, if they had gotten their hands on Bihac, across Croatia as well.

You speak of what "would have" happened to the Krajina Serbs had they stayed? Let's talk about what "did" happen to the Srebrenica muslims when the Serb army got to them. Oh, you probably don't want me to mention that.

I'm sorry, what "would have" "might have" happened is irrelevant. You can't charge someone with a crime for what you think they "may" do. The facts are that Operation Storm was undertaken to restore the territorial integrity of the borders of Croatia, to stop the take over of Bihac and push the Bosnian Serb army back and bring about the Dayton Peace Accords. That was the objective - that was the result. The Serb Krajina leadership is responsible for the 180,000 Serbs leaving Croatia (since when did the number 250,000 EVER appear anywhere before???). How many Croatians and Muslims have been allowed to return to Republika Srpska in Bosnia? I doubt even a fraction of the people who were ethnically cleansed by the Serbs have been allowed to return to their homes.

That is why Croatia is on the path to EU membership and Nato membership and Serbia is, well......

Galbraith will not accept that Operation Storm was deliberate ethnic cleansing because that would mean the United States were responsible for war crimes, i.e. failing to use their influence to stop war crimes from taking place if they have information that such crimes are likely to exist.

Galbraith already admits that the US has 'foreknowledge' of the attack on the Krajina, but ignores the role of the US governement through MPRI (Military Professional Resources Incorporated), a company set up by the US intelligence and military community outside the recall of congress (much like they have done in many other cases of which 'Air America' being the most famous), even though its members came straight from various US military and intelligence services, techncally 'retired' though retaining links and information with their 'former' colleagues who provided them with satellite imagery, communication intercepts and other forms of military information that could only come from official US sources, used to prepare operation storm for the Croats.

Operation Storm would not have been possible without direct help from the US governement and its allies who provided the intelligence and weapons either directly and via proxies.

The fact that Galbraith is testifying at the UN on a very tight leash "in the presence of a U.S. government representative".

Gotovina's defense lawyer, Greg Kehoe has previously worked for and has strong links to the Pentagon.

Galbraith's testimony is useless he can be freely cross-examined, which is certainly not the case here.

This just goes to show who pulls the strings at the ICTY.

Not 'ethnic cleansing' Mr Galbraith?

> In his view, the Serb Republic of Krajina (RSK) authorities are responsible for the Serbs’ departure "because they had urged the population to leave".

So this diplomat is basically saying that in order for this crime to be technically a case of ethnic cleansing, serb population should have stayed & been massacred.

Got news for you Galbraith - then crime is called genocide.

And regarding US complicity?

Galbraith lays ALL blame on the croatian civilian leadership & on it's military...
whilst taking none of the blame on behalf of the US...
despite foreknowledge, & 'covert' assistance in the preparation & execution of 'Operation Storm'.

If a solicitor tried to use this defence in a criminal case, he'd be disbarred for incompetency, & his client would be found equally guilty of the crime committed.

And a comparable result here would be that the US would be found along with Croatia, equally guilty on the charge of the ethnic cleansing of an entire ethnic population.

Aleks,

Actually, I think Galbraith’s statements are worth noting, his legal opinion of what is or is not ethnic cleansing are irrelevant at best, that’s clearly a legal decision and has nothing to do with what he says.

Here’s what he said.

"You cannot ethnically cleanse somebody who is no longer there, although it doesn’t mean that the Croatian forces would not have done it if the Serbs had remained there,"

So we’re all in agreement that the Serbs WOULD have been ethnically cleansed had they stayed.

So the question becomes why did the Serbs leave?

Galbraith puts it lamely, using the standard nationalistic excuse we hear so much, “the Serb Republic of Krajina (RSK) authorities are responsible for the Serbs’ departure "because they had urged the population to leave". All sides in the Balkans make an attempt to use this kind of logic and reasoning, and it only encourages further acts of ethnic cleansing. If allowed to continue unchallenged it will only result in a “loop hole” for ethnic cleansing and we’ll see the lives of minorities made so miserable that they feel they have to flee or face destruction.

However, here we have a grain of the truth and really what is the important part, Šušak "admitted to Galbraith that the Croatian authorities engaged in psychological warfare that partly contributed to the exodus".

Galbraith also states Tudjman "was not ashamed of his views and… spoke favorably of the so-called humane transfer of population".

Here we have a first person witness to a statement by members of the Croatian government about how they went about causing the ethnic cleansing. Clearly this shows motivation.

Now that we’ve established motivation, did the actions of the Croatian government so severe as to cause the Serbs to flee?

Clearly the use of symbols reminiscent of the Ustashe regime contributed to this. A grim reminder that the terrible fate that befell the previous generation might happen again.

Then we had the crimes that occurred in the Medak pocket. Even Galbraith says the US administration warned “The atrocities like those committed in the Medak Pocket in 1993 were not to be repeated”.

Clearly the Serbs were assured a similar fate had they stayed.

In fact the Serbs that stayed were killed and all the homes were destroyed.

Had the Serbs left, and all was clear and they came immediately back, then the claim they left on their own accord would have some validity, but the fact that the Croatian government made it IMPOSSIBLE to come back by destroying everything, that they engaged in actions and earlier crimes in order to scare the Serbs into abandoning all their possessions and former lives makes it seem highly likely to me that this is a clear cut case of ethnic cleansing, the worst ethnic cleansing of the war, celebrated as a national holiday in Croatia!

So the question remains. Under international law, how should the Serbs of Croatia have been expected to behave? Should they have been expected to just lay down and wait for the end? Is that really what this world is coming to? Is that what we want to be acceptable behavior in the future?

Peter himself was on one of those tanks that went into knin. There are pictures of this. He is just as respondsible.