Islam and the West: Lesson from Bosnia

by Khurram Murad

War in Bosnia, like the Gulf War, marks the beginning of the so-called clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, as has been propounded by the intellectuals and politicians of the West. The cunningness, artifice, brutality and the ferocity with which this war is being fought has proved that the ‘civilized’ West would not hesitate from trampling any civil or human values while pursuing its crusade against Islam. Though the crime of turning Bosnia into a butchery _ a butchery of human beings, their honor and chastity, their property, their civilization _ lies with the Serbs but the Western powers, Britain, France and USA in particular, are their accomplices. The unabashedness with which they are supporting the Serbs, covering and abetting in their crimes, helping them in carrying out massacre of innocent people, implementing their plans of writing off Bosnia by dividing it into pieces is no more a secret. Without the support of Western powers, Serbia alone could not have done this all.

Even the Western people of conscience have condemned Serb brutality and West’s support for it. Professor Bruckner says, "This is the defeat of law. 46 years after the defeat of Nazism we have come to know that Europe is not a civilized, peaceful and secure place; Barbarism can rule here. Our tall claims about European values have proved to be a far cry. If barbarism can rule in Europe then the whole of our civilization is dubious." (Page 239, Praxis-Oxford, Vol. XIII).

The editor of the same journal adds, "it is said that Europe is dying in Sarajevo. The fact, however, is that what is dying is more precious than Europe: the right of man that he has some rights." (do; page 330-331)

David Rielf in Slaughterhouse of Bosnia and the failure of West says, "Many a dreams have scattered in Bosnia during the last two and half years: the dream that there exists something like world conscience; the dream that Europe is civilized; the dream that the weak has as much right to justice as the powerful; the dream that knowledge of the good prevents us from the evil. A complete defeat, and extremely disgraceful one."

Lif Schultz and Rabiya Ali in Why Bosnia say, "the case of Bosnia proves that actions of powerful states are devoid of all moral or human values. They, however, preach these sacred values which, except themselves, should be adhered to by the entire world. Nuremberg Principles, the Human Rights Charter, Geneva Convention and Helsinki Declaration are all their new ‘beliefs and codes of life’ [their tools to control their opponents] but they do not allow them to interfere in their own matters." (P-xii).

Since April 1992, Bosnian Muslims, yes only the Muslims, have been the target of Serb savagery and brutality. More than 250,000 Muslims have been slaughtered; thousands were herded away, fastened and shot to death; more than 50,000 Women have been raped; thousands of children have been killed by throwing them against walls and under the tanks. Dead bodies have been mutilated; eyes and ears have been chopped to make ‘garlands’ of; heads have been smashed and brains taken out. More than two million Muslims have been rendered homeless and their settlements have been reduced to rubbles. (At the rate of 200 villages a day) thousands of mosques, three large libraries, centuries-old manuscripts, hundreds of schools, beautiful works of architecture, houses, bridges and whole cities like Foucha, Mostar, old Sarajevo have been destroyed and annihilated. While this was being done, the West and the UN played no more than the role of silent spectators.

The savagery at Serbrenica and Zepa in July is another evidence of evil designs of the Western powers. Both of these towns were among the six the UN and Western countries had declared ‘safe havens’ for their Muslim population, where they would be safe from Serb attacks. UN troops were there ostensibly to protect them. In spite of all international guarantees and arrangements, the Serbs issued an ultimatum to UN soldiers to clear the way. This they did and a few who did not were taken hostages. Thus Serbrenica was taken over and 24 thousand Muslims were wiped out in a few days.

To the click of the Camera, the victorious Commander, General Milasovich, celebrated his victory by having a toast with Dutch commander of the UN Forces, distributed chocolates among Muslims and assured them of peace and security. But a hell was let loose as soon as the Cameras were off. While the old and children were despatched to another safe haven, Tuzla, young women were selected for rape and the able bodied men were herded away and butchered. Then came Zepa which was conquered in the same way. Now it was, perhaps, the turn of Behaj when Croatia launched a sudden attack on Serbs.

What was the reaction of Western powers? Britain and France felt disgusted when USA sent to UN the aerial photographs of fresh mass-graves near Serbrenica. Earlier, at a one-day conference in London, though Serbs had been warned of serious action if they attacked Gorazde, this was, in fact, a license for them to conquer the remaining ‘safe havens’, including Gorazde, because conference chairman, the British Foreign Secretary had also said that "We will never fight". The real intentions got clear when he could not resist saying "all right, here is our latest offer for Bosnia: Surrender Serbrenica, Zepa and Gorazde and in turn......"

The Farce of "Safe Havens"

The coming into being of the "safe havens" is itself a shameful story. In September, 1991 when the Serbs first attacked Slovenia and then Croatia, the Security Council imposed arms embargo on the whole of Yugoslavia as wished by Britain and France on the request of Serbia. The embargo is still in force and is clearly in the interest of Serbia and against Bosnia. Bosnia has acted on the directions and advice of Europe and USA in letter and spirit for the sake of its independence. Unlike Slovenia or Croatia, it did not announced separation from Yugoslavia. It also conducted a referendum as desired by Europe. The Serbs had committed aggression by transgressing its borders and, under the UN Charter, it had a right to defend its frontiers and to acquire arms for its defense. Though US and Britain claimed they honored the territorial integrity of Bosnia, they not only continued arms embargo against it but vehemently opposed its lifting. Nor did they made alternative arrangements for the defense of Bosnia.

According to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, the strength of the Serb forces in Bosnia, who had obtained almost whole arsenal from Yugoslavia, was ten times than that of the Bosnian Army. Bosnian Army was comprised of hardly 3,500 men. In September 1992, it had two tanks and two Armed Personnel Carriers while Serb Army had 300 tanks, 200 vehicles, 800 guns and 40 aircrafts.

It was only on December, 1992, that the General Assembly realized the shameful discrimination against one member state which was refused its right to defense as guaranteed under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It was only then that the resolution for lifting of arms embargo against Bosnia was adopted with heavy majority and it was recommended to the Security Council urging it to "revoke its earlier decision regarding arms embargo on Bosnia and to take all possible steps for safeguarding the territorial integrity of Bosnia." The Security Council, however, ignored this resolution and declared six "safe havens" instead of lifting the arms embargo. Thereafter, all efforts for lifting arms embargo failed. Even President Clinton vetoed a Congress resolution for lifting of arms embargo though he had been supporting military intervention in Bosnia during his Presidential campaign.

What happened when Serbrenica fell to the Serbs? An eye witness saw 500 Muslim youth, with their hands tied to their necks, being forced to crawl and then shot dead. Bosnia was meted out similar treatment by the USA, Britain, France and rest of the Europe. They first tied its hands, deprived it of arms to defend itself, forced it to crawl before its enemy, instigated and helped its enemy to cut it down after amputating its parts one by one.

Western countries had only one argument against resumption of arms supply: it will increase bloodshed. But, in fact, the bloodshed could not have been worse. It is quite another thing that Bosnia proved tough enough and defended itself for many years with a small army of only 3,500 personnel and two tanks and could not be wiped out from the map of the world. It is clear that Serb aggression could have been halted, rather repulsed if Bosnia had requisite supply of arms.

It is said that internal political compulsions of Western countries, the absence of oil in Bosnia and other interests were the reasons behind West’s indifference and cold-shoulder attitude towards Bosnia. Nor it allowed UN or NATO to use arms against the Serbs. Though this dastardly act of hypocrisy is unjustified, it is still expected and comprehensible. But the question is what is the justification for stopping the people of Bosnia from defending themselves?

Whether the West really wanted to stop the bloodshed of Bosnian Muslims; whether it was really interested in keeping territorial integrity of Bosnia intact? The answer is ‘no’. Whatever happened to Bosnia was exactly in accordance with the Western plans and designs. British defense secretary had said that lifting of arms embargo was the worst solution. When asked why, he said "then we will lose control" (The Nation, 24 March, 93). What he meant was that they would not be able to do in Bosnia what they liked.

West’s problem was that Serbs proved incapable contrary to their estimates, while Bosnia proved to be a hard nut to crack. It survived many a murderous attempts. Defeated in its evil designs, it found itself compelled to do something for face-saving and keeping intact its image of being ‘civilized’ and the champion of ‘human rights’. They are doing this obviously with a heavy heart. NATO’s recent bombardment on Serb arms pile-up in the suburbs of Sarajevo was an act of same kind, an eye-wash.

West sides with the Tyrant

Western countries have supported Serbia and opposed Bosnia not only on the issue of arms supply, but virtually on all matters. In the most, they seem prepared to offer to the Muslims some ‘Reservation’ like Red Indians or some ‘Lesotho’ like Africans, and they be content with this ‘offering’.

To hoodwink the world, they have been inventing lies. Their real intention has been to connive at and give cover to the heinous crimes of Serbia, to hold no distinction between the oppressor and the oppressed, to force Bosnia to accept ‘ethnic cleansing’ by Serb aggressors and submit to its division on ethnic and racial basis. They want a total submission of Bosnia or else it should be prepared to face annihilation. In order to achieve these objectives, they have been fanning the Serb propaganda more forcefully than the Serbs themselves.

The facts about Serbian aggression, ethnic cleansing, large scale massacre, events of rape, concentration camps and the bone-skeletons splashed on the TV screen for the first time in August 1992. Could the intelligence agencies of the countries like USA, Britain and France have remained ignorant of such atrocities being perpetrated at a distance of merely one hour from Munich and two hours from Paris? Certainly not. These countries deliberately kept silent. When the world protested, the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, James Baker, termed it simply as "a serious humanitarian issue at the heart of Europe" and stressed upon the need for only relief efforts. He further said that "force will not be used until all means were exhausted." President Bush termed these atrocities as "series of reprisals" and a "complicated consequence of centuries-old rivalries." He did not call for an end to the atrocities nor for the closure of the concentration camps. He simply pleaded for "Red Cross access to the camps." The Head of the UN relief agency said "yes, some unpleasant situation does exist."

Prominent figures in the West do not feel shy in blaming the oppressed Muslims along with the Serb oppressors. In BBC’s Panorama, British Commander General Rose pointed to some burnt houses in Gorazde and said, "Here, Muslims killed 12,500 Serbs." UN record does not mention any such incident! On the other hand, the record of 1991 census shows that there were ten thousand Serbs in the whole of Gorazde district and hardly five thousand of them would have been in the city. Why did a responsible person like General Rose tell a concocted story. But a General’s statement given to BBC was repeated by all and sundry. After having a briefing at the British Foreign Office, a Senior American diplomat could not resist but remarked, "such an exhaustive briefing had only one objective: to blame the Muslims as much as possible."

Another trick was of attributing the crimes of the Serbs to the Muslim. When the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister Hakia Triablex, traveling under escort of the French contingent of the UN forces, was shot dead by the Serbs, the Inquiry Commission placed the responsibility of this on the Muslims who, it thought had "created a climate of unrest". In Sarajevo, civilians queuing at a bakery were shelled in 1992 and a market place was bombed in 1994. Without any evidence of the involvement Bosnian government, the first UN Commander, Canadian General Meckenzi openly blamed it for these incidents.

Many other false stories were also circulated. One of them was that the bloodshed in the Balkans was a matter of routine. The fact, however, is that the bloodshed between Britain, France and Germany is unprecedented not only in Europe but in the entire world. During the First World War 8,400,000 people were killed and twenty million were injured. Nearly sixty million died in second World War alone. To say that there have been "old ethnic rivalries" which continue to prop up, is like distorting history. The fact is that the three communities had been living in complete harmony for centuries in Bosnia. Being a tolerant multi-ethnic society, Bosnia was like a jewel and a paradise in the midst of the hell of Europe. And the Muslims, the Serbs and the Croats were racially not very different from one another. Still another lie is that there had been no country or nation by the name of Bosnia. An Ex-Editor of New York Times, Rosenthal wrote, "the Muslim leaders have declared the freedom of a Bosnia which never existed as a nation, where Muslim were never in majority and where no Bosnians have ever lived." (16 April, 1993)

British Tory historian Noel Malcolm in his beautiful research book "Bosnia: A Short History" has exposed these lies of Western regimes.

Western powers are bent upon declaring Serbian naked and savage aggression against Bosnia, ethnic cleansing, massacre, rape and occupation over 70% of Bosnia simply as a "civil war". What does it mean except equating the oppressor and the oppressed and justifying the acts of aggression? The only objective of the Western "campaigns for peace" has been to "divide Bosnia between the Serbs and the Croats, confining the Muslims to certain areas". This was the common objective of Carrington, Vance and Owen formulas.

In April 1993, American Secretary of State Warren Christopher wrote a letter to the Bosnian President asking him to accept the division of Bosnia on the lines already agreed upon by the Serbian President Milasovich and Croat President Tudjman and approved by peace delegates Dr. Owen from Britain and Dr. Stoltonberg from Norway. Some conscientious State Department officers protested against this suggestion. Four officials even tendered resignations. The letter was, nevertheless, despatched on 19th August. In April 1993, President Clinton raised his voice against ethnic cleansing and division saying that is was inhuman and wrong and "we should rise against it". In September, however, during his meeting with President Alija Izzet Begovich he insisted that Bosnia should accept the ‘peace prescriptions’.

It is noteworthy that the ministers and the officials of the three big powers, who were dealing with this issue, had close personal contacts with Serb leaders. Mr. Eagle Burger, Deputy Secretary of State in Bush Administration during Bosnian crisis, was U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade in late 70s and was a personal friend of Milasovich. After retirement, he had joined Henry Kissinger Associates and eventually became its president. This firm used to win big projects in Serbia. He was also a Director of Yogo-America which was a branch of a Serbian Car manufacturing plant in the US. The National Security Advisor, Mr. Scowcraft was also US Air attaché in Belgrade in 1960 and was a close friend of Serbian leaders.

After Serbian aggression against Bosnia, Prime Minister John Major called for a Conference in London to implement a ‘policy’ which had neither been declared nor debated. Mr. Eagle Burger was the key-speaker at this conference and related ‘Serb’s tale of woe’ and the unprecedented difficulties the Serbs had been facing since long. He termed the ‘struggle’ as ‘old’ and ‘complicated’ but neither mentioned Bosnia nor expressed any hope for its existence. This exposed Western clandestine intentions of wiping out Bosnia from the map of the world.

West’s anti-Muslim Stance

What is the root-cause of western regimes’ anti-Muslim sentiment? They certainly don’t admit it lest their claim to ‘civilization’ becomes questionable. But it is no more a secret. They colluded with the Serbs both in their stance and in heinous acts of ethnic cleansing and racial discrimination.

In one of his Interviews, Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic says, "our strategy is to save Europe from the danger of a Muslim State in Bosnia. We are sure, some Muslim State in Europe will become the pivotal centre of Muslim terrorism in Europe." (New York Times, 18 July 93). The Serbs, therefore, think and even openly admit that "we are fighting Europe’s War against Islam, Muslims, and the Turks. We are fighting Christianity’s War. We are fighting the last Crusades. The extremist, terrorist, fundamentalist ‘Mujahideen’ will over-run whole of the Europe if a Muslim State is established in Bosnia".

A Serb Woman in Foucha told a Reuters correspondent "there is the battlefield, Jihad had to start from there. Foucha would have become another Makkah. Lists of the Serbs to be killed had been prepared which included two of my sons who would have been killed like swine; and I would have been raped." (Malcolm; Bosnia: A brief history; p 237).

The echo of this was also heard within French government. A high official told John New House of New Yorker "We want not only to prevent a war from spreading but also the establishment of a Muslim State in Europe which would soon become a prosperous, aggressive country and a flashpoint of all conflicts. [Bosnia should, therefore, be eliminated so that there remains no possibility of any such threat in future]. "We don’t want the Muslim to scatter in Europe as did the Palestinians [lest they become a threat, their ethnic cleansing is warranted]. "you cannot imagine how close are our interests to those of the Serbs. Serbs pose no problem to us but Muslims do". Exactly the same views were expressed in June 1993 by President Yeltsin’s Adviser for Balkan affairs, Mr. Veladimir Volkov in his address at Yale University. He said, "some Serb ‘actions’ are certainly regrettable but the World _ and Europe _ should keep an eye on deceitful, unreliable and double-standard Muslims. Bosnia would prove to be a bridge for Turk and Albanian imperialism in Europe."

How funny it is to think of a threat of Turk imperialism to Europe from an unarmed Bosnia whose 70% territory is under Serb occupation, whom Milasovich of Serbia and Tudjman of Croatia, despite being sworn enemies, have agreed to usurp by dividing among themselves and whose destruction is a common agenda for all Western powers. But fears of the West are so deep rooted that they have not been able to come out of them despite the lapse of 1400 years.

Lessons for Muslim Ummah

Regrettable and strange is the fact that unlike Slovenia and Croatia Muslim leaders were not prepared for their defense. For their security and existence they "depended" on the USA, the West, the Europe, the UN, world conscience, European values and human values. This proved to be a mirage. They could not recall that the West has never fought a war in support of any oppressed or for any moral values. Second World War was fought not for freedom or in sympathy with Poland or to protect the Jews or democracy. The Muslim leadership placed false hopes and got trapped as the fly gets entangled in the Cob-Web. No machination can, however, disturb Allah’s scheme of things. He can frustrate evil designs and can turn table on the perpetrators of cruelty.

There is nothing strange in anti-Muslim attitude of the West. Today’s rulers have inherited yesterday’s ‘civilization’ which embodies tyranny, oppression and despotism. It destroyed settlements after settlements and without feeling slightest guilt of conscious. It were Europeans who, for the sake of ‘ethnic cleansing’ eliminated six million Jews. It were the successors of the European Jews who subjected more than six million Palestinians to tyranny, blood bathed them, rendered them homeless and dispersed them all over the World and usurped their rights in their own homeland. It were the European ‘refugees’ who exploited red-Indians in USA, grabbed their properties and confined them to ‘protected areas’. It were they who had enslaved millions of black Africans and did not feel pranks while burning them alive. Their ancestors were involved in burning alive millions of people in sectarian hatred. Roman Rulers were their first ancestors who played havoc after conquering Carthage in 146 B.C. The bloodshed continued for six days and the city was reduced to rubbles. More than one million Jews were slaughtered at the conquest of Jerusalem in 64 A.D. According to G.H. Wales, "They were so unabashed in lying about their foes that even a propagandist of today stands outclassed before them. Their allegations against a nation serve as a prelude to their carnage". [No doubt, the same history is being repeated in Bosnia today].

We do not want to renew old grievances by fanning hatred. We want to promote peace and tranquillity among human beings so that they live as members of the family of one God. This is our message for the West with whom we want congenial relations, not confrontation.

We however believe that the Muslims should not ignore the facts and ground realities, as Bosnians did. They should rather be alive to bitter realities. If they are not aware of history, they should at least take lessons from the Bosnia of today. While expressing solidarity with people of conscience in the West, they should not entertain false expectations from Western regimes. They must heed to the divine instructions:

• Repel (Evil) with what is better (Surah 41, verse 34);
• Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power (Surah 8, verse 60);
• But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah (Surah 8, verse 61); and
• O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight (Surah 8, verse 65);

or, like Bosnian Muslims, they too would be disarmed, blindfolded and hacked to death.

---

Translation and adaptation of the editorial of Tarjuman Ul Quran October 1995.