THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: S8547]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am honored today to present to my colleagues in the Senate an essay by Collette N. Roberts of Rapid City, SD. Collette is a student at St. Thomas More High School, and she has been awarded first place in the 16th annual National Peace Essay Contest for South Dakota. ``Justification of War: the Anglo-Zulu and Kosovo Wars'' examines the Anglo-Zulu war of the late 19th century as a paradigm for understanding Kosovo's struggle against the military campaign of Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia. Collette has tackled a vitally important subject with insight and maturity. I can only hope that she continues to share her wisdom with the world, and I commend her essay to my colleagues' attention. I ask unanimous consent that Collette Roberts's essay be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Justicifaction of War: The Anglo-Zulu and Kosovo Wars

   ``......this has never been and never can be/one territory under two masters'' (Judah, 2000, p. 4). The line in the poem by Anne Pennington and Peter Levi holds the ring of truth. Many wars have been waged over a piece of land such as the Anglo-Zulu and Kosovo Wars. The circumstances surrounding these wars are similar, but are justified only in part. In both wars, one side had reached the last resort: either defend their homeland or face subjugation. Both were waged by legitimate authorities; however, nothing justifies the genocide of a race and the slaughter of innocent civilians. Upon examination, the justness of the Anglo-Zulu and Kosovo Wars and NATO involvement in Kosovo is subjective, contingent upon the motives and actions of each party.

   The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries mark the imperialistic age for Great Britain. by the 1870s, most of South Africa had succumbed to British rule. Zululand, however, one of the last independent African states in the region, presented challenge to an advancing white frontier (The Diagram Group, 1997, p. 105). Not only did the independent state disrupt Britain's confederation plans for the region, but also prevented sugar farmers from using the spacious tracts of land within the boundaries of Zululand. Furthermore, as long as the Zulu remained independent, they could not be sued for cheap labor. Zululand became a dollar sign in the eyes of the British. When the Zulu defied British subjugation, war inevitably ensued (Gump, 1949, p. 3).

   British military forces, commanded by Frederick Thesiger (better known as Lord Chlemsford), began the invasion of Zululand in 1879. The Zulu, under the rule of King Cetshwayo, rose to defend their homeland. The first major battle occurred at Islandhlwana. Losses were heavy to both armies; but the Zulu, underestimated by the British, claimed victory. To justify his actions, Dabulamanzi, a Zulu general, said, ``It is the whites who have come to fight with me in my own country and not I that do to fight with them'' (Gump, 1994, p. 54).

   Despite the intensity and valor with which the Zulu fought, the battle oNdini marked the end of the Anglo-Zulu War. Poorly provision and outgunned, the Zulu military system was broken. Between six and ten thousand Zulu men died defending their homeland (Knight, 1995, p. 270). Following the war, the British began decentralizing the Zulu royal house. Zululand was carved into thirteen regions, each headed by British sympathizers. Finally subjugated, young Zulu men soon found themselves traveling outside Zululand in search of work. The system of migrant labor, as in other parts of south Africa, had at last taken hold of Zululand. The economic seeds of apartheid, the racist system of black oppression, had been sown (Knight, 1995, p. 272).

   Those, like the Zulu, who are invaded by a conquering power are faced with only two choices: subjugation or was (Gump, 1994, p. 3). Though the chances for success were poor for the Zulu, war was the only chance to defend their homeland and preserve their way of life. When the British could not easily lay their hands on what they wanted, they believed they had reached the last resort, and therefore initiated war. These attitudes are common throughout all imperialistic societies. Britain justified its actions through claims to ``savage'' Zulu; to expose them to a ``new and better way of living'' (Gump, 1994, p. 14). However, war, from the imperialistic standpoint not be the final option when a piece of land and the promise of a profit are found to be superior to human life.

   The Anglo-Zulu War is not the only confliction history that has occurred over a piece of land. For centuries, opposition has brewed between the Serbs and Albanians of the Balkans. The source of conflict is Kosovo, a province of Serbia, sharing borders with Albania (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 9). The claim of the area is bitterly disputed between the Serbs and the Albanians. Serbs hold that, despite the ethnic shift only a few generations ago, the people of Kosovo have been primarily serbian. The Albanians, on the other hand, argue that their ancestors, the ancient Illyrians and the Dardanians, habituated the region prior to the Slavic invasions of the sixth and seventh centuries. Therefore, they believe, Albanians have the right to what they call ``first possession.'' The truth concerning the claim of Kosovo is unclear. However, as in most cases, the truth is not what matters, but rather is what the people believe the truth to be (Judah, 2000, p. 2).

   In April, 1987, a politician from Belgrade delivered a speech glorifying the Serbian nation. Because of high tensions between the Albanians and the Serbs, biased speechmaking had been against certain unspoken ``rules'' in Yugoslavia. However, by the end of the year, he became the most powerful politician in Serbia (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 18). In 1991, Milosevic began his war in Bosnia for a ``Greater Serbia.'' By the time the Dayton Peace Agreement had been approved and signed, hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Croats had fallen victim to the program of ``ethnic cleansing,'' driven from their homes, tortured, raped, and murdered (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 20). Despite the declaration of peace, Milosevic's ambitions for a ``Greater Serbia'' had not been eliminated. His ambitions soon turned toward Kosovo.

   Kosovo remained under the harsh rule of Serbia. In 1997, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a small guerrilla force, began to wage a war against Serbian authorities. Alone, the KLA's chances for a sweeping victory were slim. However, the worthy cause of self-defense justifies their actions. The occasional skirmishes between the KLA and Serbian authorities culminated in the Serbian massacre in Drenica where dozens of ethnic Albanian civilians were slaughtered (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 30). Despite NATO threats of airstrikes to end the fighting, the violence between the Albanians and Serbs continued to escalate. In January, 1999, Serbs massacred forty-five ethnic Albanians in the Kosovar village of Racak. NATO, acting as a peace-keeper gave the Serbs and Kosovar Albanians an ultimatum: make peace or face NATO military action. The Albanians were willing to make peace, but all agreements proved futile when Milosevic refused to sign (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 33).

   Far from any kind of last resort, Milosevic, wielding the power of a legitimate authority, instigated a massive Serb military attack on Kosovo. Kosovar Albanians, both military and civilian, were his paramount targets. A campaign of ethnic cleansing, echoing that of Bosnia, was launched on the Kosovar Albanians. Homes were burned, women were raped, and men were slaughtered; mass graves, freshly dug, could be seen from the air (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 48). Milosevic justified his unjust actions through his call for a ``Greater Serbia.'' Again, the desire for a piece of land was put before the sanctity of human life.

[Page: S8548]  GPO's PDF

   When peace became impossible and violence continued, NATO was left with the last resort. As promised, NATO took military action to halt the Serbian offensive and its mass genocide of the Albanians. A reasonable chance for success was existent. Furthermore, there was the belief that the consequences of these aggressive actions would be better than the situation that would exist had these actions not been implemented. In March 1999, NATO airplanes and cruise missiles began bombing Serbian military targets. Ultimately, through the joint efforts of the KLA and NATO, Serbia withdrew from Kosovo seventy-eight days later and signed NATO peace agreements. By the time peace had been achieved, 900,000 Albanians had been removed from their homes in Kosovo (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 54). Another ten thousand lay dead--murdered by Serbs during their ethnic cleansing of Kosovo (Andryzsewski, 2000, p. 57).

   Critics may argue that the decision to bomb Serbia may not have been the most effective course of action. Regrettably, serious mistakes were made and the bombings killed civilians, both Serb and Albanian. Furthermore, a bomb hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three and wounding nearly two dozen (Andryszewski, 2000, p. 50). Despite these tragic events, had NATO not put pressure on Serbia to end its campaign of ethnic cleansing, the number of genocide victims would have only increased.

   As demonstrated, one territory cannot serve two masters. The Anglo-Zulu and Kosovo Wars were waged because two parties tried to control one piece of land. Each party had reasons for taking part in the fight. Many factors come into play that do or do not justify these reasons. The Zulus and Albanians were justified by reaching the last resort and defense of their homeland. Though neither of these parties had any reasonable chance of victory, the justness of their cause is in no way lessened. NATO military action was justified in its attempts to check the violence. Britain and Milosevic, though legitimate authorities, valued land over human life. Their motives were unjust. Justice is blind, but will forever be weighed by our motives and actions.

   REFERENCES

   Andryszewski, T. (2000). Kosovo: the splintering of Yugoslavia. Brookfield, CT: The Millbrook Press, Inc.

   Diagram Group, The. (1997). People of South Africa. New York: Author.

   Gump, J.O. (1994). The dust rose like smoke: the subjugation of the Zulu and the Sioux. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

   Judah, T. (2000). Kosovo: war and revenge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

   Knight, I. (1995). Anatomy of the Zulu Army: from Shaka to Cetshwayo. London: Greenhill Books.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display