Talk:Racak incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutrality disputed?

Who disputes the neutrality of this page? Since there is no discussion, I intend to remove the neutrality tag unless there are objections.2toise 22:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please don't. The last paragraph (suggesting that William Walker is a CIA agent but without adding any evidence) screams of bias. I'll work on it when I've finished my current edits. - ChrisO 23:20, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As promised, I've reworked the article. Actually, I've done a complete rewrite: the original article had quite a lot of POV bias in it so I decided that the best course was to ditch it and start over. -- ChrisO 23:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Notes on Racak incident edits

1. "Displacement" vs "evacuation" - according to the OSCE, the population was "displaced" following fighting in July 1998. Displacement can mean both expulsion and voluntary evacuation. I don't have information as to which it was, so I suggest that we use "displacement" to cover both possibilities.

I believe that "relocation" is the most neutral term. Nikola

"Relocation" suggests an orderly evacuation. "Displacement" covers all of the scenarios, because it describes what actually happened on the ground; "relocation" is an explanation of displacement (just as "ethnic cleansing" is an alternative explanation). -- ChrisO

I am not a native English speaker, but to my ear "relocation" doesn't suggest whether there is order in it or not, and "displacement" suggest that it is done forcibly. Don't try to convince me otherwise, I will not believe you. You might suggest a third term. Nikola

Maybe it's a nuance of English (I am a native English speaker, btw). Displacement is an event - it means literally something moving from one place to another. Relocation is one process by which that event happens. Other processes in this context include abandonment, evacuation and expulsion. We both agree that the inhabitants left Racak - in other words, they were displaced. The disagreement is over how they were displaced. In English, the term is entirely neutral, and doesn't imply anything other than that they moved away from their original location. If you don't believe me on this, I suggest that you raise the question on Wikipedia:Village pump or somewhere like that and get a second opinion from another native English speaker. -- ChrisO

I'm native English (well, Canuckistani) and on the why-is-Milosovic-in-the-Hague-but-not-Bush-Klinton-and-Dumbya? side: "relocation" does connote orderly and "displacement" does connote force, but not necessarily more direct force than trying to avoid crossfire. (A flood could cause "displacement.") The only alternative I can suggest offhand is "uprooting", which just sounds pussy. Kwantus 02:33, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

2. "He immediately used the killings to incite the conflict" - this is POV and is in any case not an description of what happened. It's a statement of (your view of) what effect Walker's actions had, not a statement of what those actions were. I think we can both agree with my statement that "He immediately blamed the killings on government forces."

No. The government force announced the killings at a press conference, so why would there be a reason to blame them!? Even you yourself wrote that he branded the incident "an unspeakable atrocity" which was "a crime against humanity" etc. and I don't see how could that do anything but incite the conflict. Nikola

You don't see how it could do anything but incite the conflict - in other words, it's your POV. I

Mistake: I wanted to write "I don't see how could anyone not see that that will do anything but incite the conflict." Nikola

It's still your POV, though. I'm sure Walker and others would disagree. -- ChrisO

Don't know about others, but I am certain that he would agree. Nikola

suggest that we confine ourselves to describing what Walker actually did, not what effect you or I think it had on the conflict. We can agree (I hope) on his actions if not the consequences of his actions. -- ChrisO

Perhaps you could think of something more neutral then what I wrote, but one thing Walker surely didn't do is blaming the killings on the government forces. Nikola

He definitely did do this. From the London Sunday Times, 17 Jan 1999:

William Walker, the American head of the monitoring mission run by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, was visibly shaken after touring the site of the massacre outside Racak in southern Kosovo.

"It is about as horrendous an event as I have seen, and I have been in some nasty situations," he said. "I do not hesitate to accuse the (Yugoslav) government security forces. We want to know who gave the orders, and who carried them out. I will insist that justice will be done. They certainly didn't deserve to die in circumstances like this."

I suggest that we include this direct quote in the article. It was reported independently in many other newspapers (a large group of journalists accompanied Walker to Racak). -- ChrisO

Look, yes, he said it, but it wasn't blaming -- as I said, they announced it on a press conference and there never was any dispute that the killings were done by the government forces. If we say that he blamed them it would be as if we say that "Nikola Smolenski blamed Jimbo Wales for creating Wikipedia". Nikola

I think it should be noted he looked at it and—in very poor diplomatic form for an supposed diplomat—imposed an anti-Serb bias ("horrendous event") before any forensic work had been done. The circumstances hadn't been determined -- and Ranta cast her own doubts on the circumstances in Es begann mit einer Lüge, doubts she was strenuously rehearsed to retract in court. Kwantus 02:33, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

3. I've added a sentence on the reaction to the Finnish and Yugoslav/Belarusian forensic reports. It's fair to say that the latter was not generally regarded as credible outside of Yugoslavia and Belarus; as far as I recall, even the Russians didn't believe it. It's certainly true to say that the Finnish report had more impact internationally.

I recall that subsequent bombing did not have UN backing, because it was clear that Russia would veto it, and Russia would veto it because... Nikola 08:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the forensic reports? They were both done well before the bombing started. -- ChrisO 08:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...it didn't believe the forensic and various other reports. Nikola 09:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The bombing took place on the basis of the breakdown of the Rambouillet talks, not the Racak killings. Bear in mind that there was a 2½ month gap between the two events. -- ChrisO 10:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but this was used as pretext for the "agreements". Nikola 21:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

4. "NATO governments very quickly agreed" - not just NATO or for that matter Western governments. The EU, OSCE, Council of Europe and UN all issued statements condemning the killings. This wasn't simply Yugoslavia versus NATO - there were a lot of non-NATO governments involved (the reason why a team of Finns was sent to do the autopsies was precisely because of their country's neutral status). -- ChrisO 22:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO : the archetypical Anglo-centric viewpoint as usual. Wouldn't expect any better from your typical Wikipedia busybody. The Albanians were ethnically cleansing Kosovo was before the Serb police reacted against KLA terrorism. Killings, hostage takings, Desecration of Orthodox churches, Mafia corruption of local Government, breakdown in law and order.....they were a great bunch to side with, after all, they only wanted a 'Greater Albania' and that would be great for Gangsterism in the region and abroad (London!!). 82.35.34.24 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

---

We are talking about Racak, mr/ms 82.35.34.24. It would suffice if you backed your claims that The Albanians in Racak were Desecrating Orthodox churches, breaking law and order etc etc. Even if you break the law and desecrate churches, that still doesn't call for death squads.Xhamlliku

[edit] More notes on edits

1. "It was also alleged that William Walker has never been a per se diplomat but is in fact an agent of United States intelligence on the basis that he is known as an apologist for United States-backed death squads in El Salvador who personally managed a phony humanitarian organization organized to deliver weapons to the Contras." Very POV, and a distortion of what happened; I've sourced the claim and moved it to an appropriate section with major rewording.

2. I've also expanded the paragraph on the international reaction to the forensic reports.

3. "NATO governments and various NATO-dominated international organisations" - this is simply untrue. You seem to be trying to blame NATO for everything; the fact is that it wasn't just NATO. Is the UN Secretary General "NATO-dominated"? What about Finland, Sweden and Ireland, all non-NATO EU members? For the record, the non-NATO organisations and countries mentioned in the article are very jealous of their independence from NATO (why do you think the issue of an "EU army" is so controversial?).

4. "Reports compiled by investigations conducted by the Congress of the United States state that the decision to invade Kosovo was taken in 1998, and awaited a "pretext" to "pull the trigger"." - what is your source? This is such an extraordinary claim that it really needs to be sourced. -- ChrisO 21:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, I should warn you that the impression I have gotten from Nikola was that he doesn't believe anything in the mainstream Western media. He also doesn't believe the HRW because it is funded by the Finish. For more of this, have a read of our long "discussion" when you have some time: [1]. Dori | Talk 22:19, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, that discussion does shed light on what's going on here as well. -- ChrisO 23:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, your claim that this was driven by NATO is simply untrue. NATO itself has no power and no representation on other international organisations (e.g. the UN, EU etc) - it's the member states who exercise that power, and in the case of Kosovo it was Britain and America which were in the driving seat. NATO is simply a vehicle for the implementation of member states' military policies. But the situation was not like Iraq where a lot of countries disagreed with the Anglo-US view - the EU and OSCE (with lots of non-NATO members) fully agreed and supported the proposition that the Yugoslav government was to blame in Racak.

Also, as I've already said, you need to source your claim that the US Congress found that the decision to invade was taken in 1998. If an investigation was carried out it will have been published online. What's the URL? -- ChrisO 11:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it would be more likely to be Arkan than the Yugoslav Army. Still. Hardly genocide is it. The Albanians did just as bad. PS ChrisO - just because the BBC website doesn't have a story or an angle on something, doesn't mean it isn't true. This is one incident blown out of all proportion and investigated ad nauseum. I'm sure there were likewise atrocities carried out on the Serb minority by the KLa prior to the crackdown which received absolutely 0 coverage :) 82.35.34.24 03:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand. KLA was not a governmental organization. Serb police or army was. Whatever KLA was doing, police and army must conduct their operations in accordance with law. Mass shooting of alleged KLA members without investigation and trial was clearly NOT in accordance with law.

And didn't happen here. Nikola 07:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll have to see what the court says about it... -- ChrisO 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)