ANOTHER VOICE
`Our boys' in Bosnia are admirable and brave.
That doesn't mean they are doing the right thing
CHARLES MOORE
In current discussion of the Decline of Britain question, it is a commonplace to say that at least there is one thing we can be proud of — our armed forces. And although the services do occasionally throw up people like Major James Hewitt, the commonplace seems to be true. The armed services appear to do their duty with due modesty, diligence, courage and efficiency. The word 'British' when affixed to the word 'soldiers' inspires confidence as it does not when affixed to `cooking', 'youth' or 'workmanship'.
But it is perhaps part of the Decline so often discussed that the mere invocation of the services is enough to suspend critical fac- ulties and silence useful debate. The involve- ment of troops in any enterprise is used to paint objections to the enterprise as unpatri- otic or 'armchair' (as if those who attacked the armchair critics spent any less time in that item of furniture, an item which, by the way, though much maligned, is quite a good place to be when you need to think).
Over Bosnia, this tendency is so great that it has become a serious part of the problem. The biggest single example of it was General Sir Michael Rose, who was the commander of the UN Protection Force (Unprofor) in Bosnia until the beginning of this year. There is every reason to think that General Rose is a good soldier, but there was rather less reason to think that he understood the politics of the region, and since he played those politics more than he needed to he laid himself open to attack. General Rose became, in effect, a defender of the interests of the Bosnian Serbs, and when he left, the gentlemen in Pale present- ed him with and he accepted a painting of himself surrounded by Serbian nationalist emblems. In a debate in the House of Com- mons early this year the Labour MP Calum Macdonald described this incident as dis- graceful and was immediately jumped upon not only by the Tory benches but by his own side for his blasphemy. General Rose is in the category of the Queen Mother and Mother Teresa, only to be attacked by those wishing to corner the market in bad taste.
General Rose benefited more than he should have done from the fact that he was a soldier. As he was filmed constantly strid- ing about Bosnia looking handsome and purposeful it occurred to at least one observer that he faintly resembled Mr Paddy Ashdown (formerly of the Special Boat Service) — basically good and brave and public-spirited but also, perhaps, a lit- tle silly and a teensy-weensy bit vain? Yet because of the way our culture works, Mr Ashdown, being a politician, is endlessly mocked, and General Rose, being a soldier, is endlessly praised.
To which it will be answered that politi- cians are much freer than generals to answer back, which is true, and that gener- als, unlike politicians, are in life-and-death situations, which is true and important. But supporting British troops in their work should not be the same as accepting that whatever they are told to do is right merely because they are doing it. And in Bosnia we seem almost to have reached this point.
Almost everything about our policy in Bosnia now is not about Bosnia but about `our boys'. In the Commons debate that fol- lowed the hostage-taking at the end of May, the Prime Minister explained that the vital British interest in Bosnia was the safe- ty of our troops. In the days since last week's London conference the Defence Secretary, Mr Portillo, has again and again used phrases about the safety of our troops being 'paramount'. More than 80 per cent of UN troops in Bosnia are protecting other UN troops. And the recent ultima- tum that an attack on Goradze will meet with a response from the air seems more a defence of the Royal Welch Fusiliers there than of the safety of the citizens for whom it is supposed to be a 'safe area', which leads one to wonder what will happen to Goradze when the Welsh leave at the end of August. The right and responsible thing — to avoid exposing one's men to unneces- sary risk — seems to have become the only thing. In which case, what are the soldiers for? Should Unprofor be called Unprofor- profor?
In private, too, one finds that respect for the soldiers, which is, 1 feel the need to keep repeating, admirable in itself, is used as a means of suspending thought. Minis- ters think that they have only to quote Gen- `Hansel here - we appear to be lost.' eral Rupert Smith, General Rose's more prudent and modest successor, or the equally distinguished top brass back in Britain or `Shally' (General Shalikashvili), the only American player in the drama for whom our Government has a good word, to feel that the discussion is closed. Thrown together in adversity, our essentially mod- erate, decent politicians and essentially ditto generals let off steam by railing against those with whom they have to deal. `You must understand,' I am told again and again, 'that all sides in Bosnia are "abso- lutely ghastly" ' and this fact, if fact it is, is taken to justify a self-flattering view that Britain is the neutral voice of sanity between 'warring factions'. We have seen the same self-image, again burnished by the presence of 'our boys', in Northern Ireland, and it is a breeder of grave illusions.
Strip 'our boys' out of the argument in Bosnia and it becomes easier to see the sit- uation steadily and to see it whole. If we didn't have indefensible pockets and strings of men going in for 'confidence-building' and 'promoting the peace process' and therefore did not feel the need, both psy- chological and practical, to justify the situa- tion on the ground, we would be less inclined to throw up the smoke-screen about the ghastliness of the participants, and keep our spirits up by whistling about a new, more constructive attitude from Milo- sevic. Instead, we might see that a neigh- bouring state (Serbia) had been trying vio- lently to destroy a legitimate government (Bosnia), and although we might or might not decide that the matter was our business we would surely recognise that the govern- ment in question should have the right to defend itself unimpeded.
We might recognise that 'peace-keeping', as developed by the UN, only makes sense when each side is in an equivalent position, and we might pay more attention to the fact that many of the UN resolutions under which our troops are operating in Bosnia come under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which permits the use of force under the category of enforcement rather than 'peace-keeping'. But because our undoubtedly brave and professional sol- diers are committed, our politicians oper- ate under a very obscurely argued doctrine which is really one vast diplomatic elabora- tion of the song of British soldiers every- where: 'We're here because we're here because we're here . .
Previous page
