Let me talk about just one of these charters: The InternationalrnConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of thernCrime of Genocide. In this convention, genocide is defined asrn”acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, arnnational, ethnic, racial or religious group as such,” and genocidalrnacts include: killing members of a group, causing them seriousrnbodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions ofrnlife calculated to bring about its physical destruction, imposingrnmeasures intended to prevent births, “forcibly transferring childrenrnof the group to another group.” Now, during the BosnianrnCivil War, we heard a great deal about genocide. As for the hrstrncharge—killing members of the group—all the parties arernguilty. Serbs killed Muslims who killed Croats who killed Serbsrnwho killed Croats who killed Muslims who killed Serbs. But ifrnwe examine the second and third charges—serious bodily andrnmental harm and the infliction of destructive conditions ofrnlife—it is we and our NATO allies who are guilty.rnApart from the normal incidents of war, the gravest bodilyrnharm was caused by the embargo, which—as we now know—rnwas enforced only against the Serbs, and not against the Muslimsrnand Croats. In fact, the United States violated more thanrnone international agreement by arranging the passage of Iranianrnarms by way of Croatia to the Muslims. The embargo wasrnenforced so successfully against the Serbs that vital necessitiesrn—food, medicines—were not allowed to enter into therncountry, and from Belgrade to Pale, Serbian children were dyingrnbecause there were no antibiotics or anesthetics for routinernoperations. One reporter, who brought this matter to the attentionrnof Red Cross officials in Switzerland, was told that thernSerbs were receiving very little Red Cross assistance comparedrnwith the bounty being sent to the Muslims, and, they added, ifrnthe world ever found out, no one would ever give money to thernRed Cross again, an organization that plays politics with humanrnsuffering.rnMental suffering is an elastic charge, which lends itself to thernthought-crimes legislation that became so prevalent in thernReagan-Bush years. Nonetheless, the American and Cermanrnpress succeeded in demonizing the Serbs, much as British mercenaryrnwriters demonized the Germans in World War I. Thisrnmedia campaign was orchestrated in the U.S. State Department,rnwhich has knowingly propagated lies and hatred. If therernis ever a real War Crimes Tribunal, then these masters of hatredrn—Warren Christopher, Stephen Ilalbrook, Madeleine Albrightrn—will face the same charges as Julius Streicher, who wasrnexecuted for his anti-Jewish propaganda.rnThe other categories probably do not apply to the BosnianrnCivil War, but I would point out to you that it is the policy ofrnthis administration to force contraception and abortion bothrnon blacks and Hispanics in the United States and upon ThirdrnWorld nations. The usually unspoken assumption is that thernworld has too many Africans, Indians, Asians, and not enoughrnEuropeans. I say usually unspoken, because back when PlannedrnParenthood was getting underway, its founders were very openrnin promoting eugenics, and beneath all their humanitarianrnrhetoric today, the agenda remains the same: do not let the coloredrnraces breed. Both the United States and the United Nationsrntake part in this woridwide effort, which is defined—inrntheir own convention—as genocide.rnThe final category of genocidal crimes is the transfer of childrenrnout of their group. Strange as it may seem, such transfersrnare increasingly common here in the United States, where childrenrnmay be removed from their parents’ home on a mere suspicionrnof child abuse. Saving children from abuse is obviouslyrna good thing to do. But what constitutes abuse? According tornthe various declarations on children’s rights, children have thernright not to be spanked, the right to be brought up in an atmospherernof religious toleration, the right to be provided with informationrnon sex and contraception. All over this country therernare religious parents whose children are being taken away on unsupportedrnallegations of abuse; there are homeschooling familiesrnwhose doors are being kicked in by social workers who thinkrnthere is something inherently wrong in parents who want tornprotect their kids from public education or who think their ownrnreligion is superior to others.rnThe justification for all this is the doctrine of children’srnrights. Unfortunately, in modern politics, a right always turnsrnout to mean a legal claim. If I have a right to an education, thatrnmeans that I have a claim on somebody’s wallet, somebodyrnwho must pay for my schooling. In practice this means the government,rnwhich steps in, not just in cases of abusive or deficientrnparents.rnIn fact, our governments—state and federal—claim to act inrnloco parentis for all the children of the country. This meansrnthat if a government agent decides that a child’s right is beingrnviolated, then the parents must face the full force of their staternor that of the government of the United States.rnEven the State Department can get involved. About tenrnyears ago in Chicago, a Ukrainian immigrant family decidedrnthey wanted to go home. Their son Walter, however, wanted tornstay with his aunt. Although no wrongdoing was ever allegedrnagainst the Polovchaks, the State Department stepped in to enforcernWalter’s right to divorce his parents and stay in the UnitedrnStates.rnBack then, the excuse was communism. Today, it would bernreligious freedom or the threat of female circumcision whichrnhas led some African girls to claim asylum. The details change,rnthe basic principle does not: the doctrine of human rightsrnmeans that, in Bosnia, Serbs are forced to live in a country controlledrnby their enemies, and that here in the United States, norncitizen is free to rear his children, manage his business, or thinkrnhis own thoughts.rnThe United States and its satraps on the U.N. SecurityrnCouncil have established a simple principle at The Hague:rnwhen other countries have problems, it is a matter for the internationalrncommunity to take up, but if there were a question ofrnone of the permanent members of the Security Council—arnquestion, say, of Scotland or South Carolina demanding theirrnindependence, or of Attorney General Reno’s decision to massacrern82 people in order to “protect the children” at Waco—thernpermanent members can exercise their veto power. What isrnsauce for the goose is not to be ladled upon the gander.rnThe so-called New World Order that so many Americanrnconservatives are obsessed with is only the American Empirerndoing business under a new logo. In the new American International,rnInc., children’s rights are used as a pretext for killingrnchildren. In order to defend the territorial sovereignty of arnnonexistent nation—Bosnia—a member nation of the U.N.rnhad to be dismembered, and in order to assert the right of selfdetermination,rnthe Bosnian Serbs had to be forcibly subjectedrnto a government they hated. War crimes tribunals, humanrnrights, and international security are inscribed in the lexicon ofrntyranny. For free men, these phrases should be shibboleth, andrnwhen you hear them from the lips of spokesmen or churchmen,rnyou will recognize your enemy. • crnJUNE 1997/13rnrnrn