FAMADIHANA TRADITION IN MADAGASCAR

Famadihana is a funerary tradition of the Malagasy people in Madagascar. Known as the turning of the bones, people bring forth the bodies of their ancestors from the family crypts and rewrap them in fresh cloth, then dance with the corpses around the tomb to live music.

The Famadihana custom appears to be a custom of somewhat recent origin, perhaps only since the seventeenth century in its present form, although it may be an adaptation of premodern double funeral customs from Southeast Asia. The custom is based upon a belief that the spirits of the dead finally join the world of the ancestors after the body's complete decomposition and appropriate ceremonies, which may take many years. In Madagascar this became a regular ritual usually once every seven years, and the custom brings together extended families in celebrations of kinship.

The practice of Famadihana is on the decline due to the expense of silk shrouds and opposition from some Christian organizations. Evangelical Protestants discourage the custom, although the Catholic Church no longer objects because it regards Famadihana as purely cultural rather than religious. As one Malagasy man explained to the BBC, It's important because it's our way of respecting the dead. It is also a chance for the whole family, from across the country, to come together.

Ojukwu

The Biography of Late General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu (Ikemba Nnewi)

PERSONAL PROFILE

Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu was born on November 4, 1933 at Zungeru in northern Nigeria to Sir Louis Phillippe Odumegwu Ojukwu, a businessman from Nnewi in southeastern Nigeria. Sir Louis was into transport business; he made a wise use of the business boom during the Second World War to become one of the richest men in Nigeria when he passed in 1966. So it could be rightly said that Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu was born into wealth. 
                       
Emeka, as he was fondly called, began his educational career in Kings College, Lagos in southwestern Nigeria. He got into trouble by participating in anti-colonial demonstrations with such seniors as Anthony Enahoro. At 13, his father sent him overseas to Great Britain to study at Epsom College, England. He left Epsom at 18 for Lincoln College, Oxford. At Oxford University, he obtained a bachelor’s degree in modern history. After graduate studies, he retuned to colonial Nigeria. This was in 1956.

Expected to take his father's business, he instead joined the civil service in Eastern Nigeria as an Administrative Officer at Udi, in present-day Enugu State, where he was exposed to the beauty of Waawaland.  In 1957, within months of working with the colonial civil service, he left and joined the military as one of the first and few university graduates to join the army: O. Olutoye (1956); C. Odumegwu-Ojukwu (1957), E. A. Ifeajuna and C. O. Rotimi (1960), and A. Ademoyega (1962). In his case, he joined as an infantry recruit  because the colonial officers would not let him into the officer corps, no thanks to his father's pulling of strings to keep him out of the army. But no one lights a candle and puts it under the bed. Odumegwu-Ojukwu soon got his way and went on to undergo required military training in Ghana and later back in England.
CAREER
Officer Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s popular background and sound education guaranteed his promotion to higher ranks. Besides, as at 1956, the Nigerian  Military Forces had 250 officers and only 15 were Nigerians. There were 6,400 other ranks, of which 336 were British. It is not surprising that he is N/29 and that the army found in valuable training resources in the young man. (W. U. Bassey was N/1, while JTU Aguiyi-Ironsi was N/2; the first Nigerian to be commissioned as an officer, Lieutenant L. V. Ugboma, left in 1948) Odumegwu-Ojukwu has an understandably fast rise in the military, eventually becoming the Quartermaster General.

Ojukwu came into national prominence upon his appointment as military governor in 1966 and his actions thereafter. A military coup against the civilian Nigerian federal government in January 1966 and a counter coup in July 1966 by different military factions, perceived to be ethnic coups, resulted in pogroms in Northern Nigeria in which Igbos were predominantly killed. Ojukwu who was not an active participant in either coup was appointed the military governor of Nigeria's Eastern region in January 1966 by General Aguyi Ironsi.

In 1967, great challenges confronted the Igbos of Nigeria with the coup d’etat of 15 January 1966 led by Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu who was widely considered to be an outstanding progressive and was buried with full military honours when killed by those he fought against. His coup d’etat was triggered by political lawlessness, and uncontrolled looting and lacing in the streets of Western Nigeria. Unfortunately the Sarduana of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello; the Prime Minister of Nigeria, Sir Tafawa Balewa; the Premier of the Western Region,Chief Ladoke Akintola and the Finance Minister, Chief Festus Okotie Eboh (among others including military officers) were killed in the process. The pogrom of Igbos followed in Northern Nigeria beginning in July 1966.Eventually, then Lt. Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu declared Biafra's Independence on 30 May 1967. (Biafra- 30 May 1967 to 15 January 1970).
He took part in talks to seek an end to the hostilities by seeking peace with the then Nigerian military leadership, headed by General Yakubu Gowon (Nigeria's head of state following the July 1966 counter coup).  

Colonel Odumegwu-Ojukwu never lost faith in a peaceful solution of the crises, even though citizens of Eastern Nigeria were so traumatized they generally wanted nothing more to do with their fellow citizens-turned-killers. Yet he persisted on the path of peace. First, he insisted that the military hierarchy must be preserved; in which case, Brigadier Ogundipe should take over leadership, not Colonel Gowon. But Ogundipe no longer had the stomach to deal with a riotous army; he was easily convinced to step out and into the Nigerian High Commission in London. On September 29, the final phase of the planned Pogrom was executed, marked by its brutal bestiality. Still, while coping with the mass return of maimed and bruised brethrens from the North and West, Odumegwu-Ojukwu persevered; even when it had become obvious to his people that the basis for unity had been irreparably eroded, he still talked with whomever would listen. He never lost faith in seizing the moment to fashion out a lasting legacy for generations yet unborn.
And so they ended up in Aburi, Ghana on January 4, 1967 for a peace conference hosted by General Joseph Ankrah. The brilliance of Colonel Odumegwu-Ojukwu was apparent throughout the talk. He succeeded in convincing his colleagues to sign off on what became known as “Aburi Accord.” Just when everyone thought that Nigeria was back on the path of peace, Colonel Gowon reneged and proceeded to split the Eastern Region unilaterally into three states on May 27, 1967! Three days later on May 30, 1967 and based on the mandate of the Eastern Nigerian Constituent Assembly, Colonel Odumegwu-Ojukwu declared Eastern Nigeria a sovereign state to be known as BIAFRA:

On July 6, 1967, Gowon declared war and attacked Biafra. And the Nigeria-Biafra War ensued. It was an international war, NOT a "civil war"; Biafra was already a sovereign state.  Besides, there was nothing civil about wars.  This war was  most brutal and even barbaric.  For 30 bloody months, the war raged on. Now General Odumegwu-Ojukwu knew that the odds against the new republic was overwhelming, but he preferred to fight for what is right and defend the sovereignty of Biafra against what was obviously an illegitimate regime of General Yakubu Gowon. The unholy Anglo-Soviet alliance, using rogue Egyptian mercenaries fresh from the war with Israel, pounded Biafra and Biafrans with armaments big and small, including the use of hunger as a weapon of war – which resulted in the ravaging kwashiorkor.

Biafra lasted for 30 eventful months during which a potential, indigenous African superpower almost emerged. But the forces against Biafra were enormous. On January 9, 1970, General Odumegwu-Ojukwu handed over power to his second in command, Chief of General Staff Major-General Philip Effiong (now late), and left for Côte d’Ivoire, where  President Felix Houphöet-Boigny -- who had recognized Biafra on May 14, 1968 -- granted him political asylum.

By January 12, 1970, Colonel Olusegun Obasanjo -- who was hell-bent on capturing the Biafra leader alive, so as not to make him martyr and to avoid continued conflict, he claimed -- had to deal with General Effiong. Obasanjo accepted the instruments of cessation of hostilities in Owerri. These were ratified at a formal ceremony in Lagos, presided over by General Gowon. Obasanjo went on to become the head of state, following the assassination of General Murtala Muhammed on Friday, February 13, 1976. On October 1, 1979, Obasanjo stepped down for an elected regime.

 After 13 years in exile, the Federal Government of Nigeria under President Shehu Aliyu Usman Shagari granted an official pardon to Odumegwu-Ojukwu and opened the road for a triumphant return in 1982. The people of Nnewi gave him the now very famous title of “Ikemba” (Power of the people), while the entire Igbo nation called him “Dikedioramma” (Beloved hero). He was indeed a beloved hero.

General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu is a quintessential Igbo man: proud, ambitious, and intelligent... even arrogant, as many would accuse. Here is a young man who at 33 had the fate of a nation thrust onto him, and he did not disappoint. He is a rare gem, the unconquered spirit of the Igbo personified. It is not surprising albeit ironic that in 2003 the Igbo once again turned to the same person, who had led them in a war to get out of Nigeria’s gyre, to lead them in a political battle back to Nigeria's now-centralized center in Abuja.

The political foray ended in the now called "4/19" fiasco, a complete corruption of the electoral process. In the aftermath of the rigged elections, Odumegwu-Ojukwu teamed up with other parties, including General Muhammadu Buhari, who had jailed him, to fight the result of the reelection of President Obasanjo in the courts of law. This latest fight still drags on, and the patience of the people is running on low.
Following the sudden success of the 26 August sit-at-home protest by the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), the Federal Government of Nigeria took a harder look at the organization. First, the Attorney General declared the action treasonable. Many legal experts disagreed. The Vice President weighed in and condemned the media for giving the group publicity!
Ikemba Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s open support for MASSOB did not sit well with the federal government presided over by the man who thought he had ended Biafra for ever.  Through its State Security Services (SSS) it sought to haul in Ikemba for questioning. At first, it appeared as a routine invitation to Abuja, the federal capital territory. But events soon took a turn for the worse.  In a press conference at his home in Enugu, capital of the southeast region, Odumegwu-Ojukwu revealed that the Feds were after him and the founder/leader of MASSOB, Chief Ralph Uwazuruike. He revealed that the SSS had sent him a one-way economy air ticket for the one-hour flight to Abuja. The SSS was quick to counter that the Ikemba must show up for a chat, calling his stance cheap blackmail and labeling him a coward. Odumegwu-Ojukwu and his supporters were quick to remind Nigeria of the many politically motivated murders that remain unsolved. They posit that if the SSS wanted to chat with the Ikemba, they could do so
in Enugu or go to court and obtain an arrest warrant. Then again, what would be the charges? For exercising his fundamental right of free speech
But that was the jaw-jaw part. The fact remain that the SSS wanted to interrogate the Biafra hero and that the Biafra leader would not bulge. In fact, Odumgwu-Ojukwu reminded the media that former heads of state Muhammadu Buhari and Ibrahim Babangida had refused to appear before the Oputa Panel of human rights violation and the heavens did not fall.   The question on everyone’s lip was: Who wants the Ikemba killed? Why is the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) being subjected to such disrespect from a retired colonel (head of SSS) whose boss (the President) was Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s junior in the Nigerian army?
What next? The SSS waited for him to make his annual trip to the United States for medical checkup. On Tuesday, night of November 16, 2004, on Zik's 100th birthday (posthumous, that is), the SSS seized his passport at Murtala Muhammed International Airport. And so began another phase in endless saga of Emeka vs. State, a rebel with a cause versus a state looking for direction.

AFTER BIAFRA
As a committed democrat, every single day under an un-elected government hurts him. The citizens of this country are mature enough to make their own choices, just as they have the right to make their own mistakes".
Ojukwu had played a significant role in Nigeria's return to democracy since 1999 (the fourth Republic). He had contested as presidential candidate of his party, All Progressives Grand Alliance(APGA)for the last three of the four elections. Until his illness, he remained the party leader. The party was in control of two states in and largely influential amongst the igbo ethnic area of Nigeria

FAMILY
Odumegwu-Ojukwu is married to a beauty-full Waawa woman, Bianca Onoh, the Nigerian 1989 Miss Inter-Continental Pageant. He was the presidential candidate of APGA in 2003 presidential elections.  He still maintains primary residence in Enugu.
DEATH
 On 26 November 2011, Ikemba Odumegwu Ojukwu died in the United Kingdom after a brief illness, aged 78. The Nigerian army accorded him the highest military accolade and conducted funeral parade for him in Abuja, Nigeria on 27 February the day his body was flown back to Nigeria from London before his burial on Friday, 2 March 2012. He was buried in a newly built mausoleum in his compound at Nnewi. Before his final internment, he had about the most unique and elaborate weeklong funeral ceremonies in Nigeria besides Chief Obafemi Awolowo, whereby his body was carried around the five Eastern states, Imo, Abia, Enugu, Ebonyi, Anambra, including the nation's capital, Abuja. Memorial services and public events were also held in his honour in several places across Nigeria, including Lagos and Niger state his birthplace. the former head of state "Chief Olusegun Obasanjo expressed sadness at the death of Odemegwu Ojukwu.
“It is with deep sadness that I received the news of the demise of my friend and colleague.
“He and I were subalterns in the army at Nigeria’s independence in 1960.

“In a way, his death marks the end of an era in Nigeria.
Obasanjo also reminisced over discussions he had with Ojukwu before the latter’s demise.
In an interview in London, Obasanjo recalled particularly that at several times, he discussed the possibility of an expression of remorse from Ojukwu “on the Nigerian civil war which in itself was a culmination of actions and reactions’’.
“I condole with his family and pray for the repose of his soul.’
DEATH, they say, is an acquired trait, and there is no mortal who will not taste of its bitter pill. When it will come, no mortal knows; but like an unrelenting
stalker, it shadows its victims and takes them away the way a hen plucks its feathers. 
And so, Chief Chukwuemeka  Odumegwu-Ojukwu, the Ikemba Nnewi and the undisputable leader of Igbo nation is dead. His death is, nonetheless, a sting in the tail for the former Biafran warlord, who fought with death on several occasions to remain alive, but eventually capitulated to its superior power as he bade the world farewell on Saturday, 26th November, 2011in a London hospital at the age of 78.

Ojukwu, a historian, soldier and politician, was hated and loved by many, depending on which side of  the divide one is looking at his life and times. For larger segment of Nigerians and beyond, he represented the soul of Nd’Igbo, even as some still have reservation on his leadership for leading the Igbo to the ill-fated Nigerian/ Biafran civil war in 1967.

His death marks a watershed, the end of yet another monumental epoch, in Nigeria’s turbulent history. As an Igbo nationalist, soldier, politician and thinker, Ojukwu is unarguably the greatest son of Igboland yet after Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe.
                farewell the irriplaceble hero of Igbo land and Nigeria, your memories will never be erased!

The Origins and Causes of the Bosnian Civil War, 1992-1995 
By Carl Savich

Introduction
The collapse of the Cold War world order beginning in 1989 resulted in the disintegration of the Communist federations of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and the other former Warsaw Pact nations in Eastern Europe. The break up of these federations resulted in bloody civil wars both in the former Soviet Union and in the former Yugoslavia. The most destructive and costly in human life was the protracted civil war in the former Communist republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina, constituted in 1945 as a constituent republic of Yugoslavia.

The diplomats and the media knew very little about the background to the conflicts and civil wars in the former Soviet Union. They knew even less about the former Yugoslavia, especially about Bosnia-Hercegovina. In US government and media propaganda, Yugoslavia became ìthe heart of Europeî and ìin the center of Europeî. Before the massive US ìinformation warî, Yugoslavia was regarded as marginal, peripheral, the ìbackwater of Europeî, on the periphery of Europe, not vital to any US interests, not part of the so-called Western civilization and culture, not part of ìenlightened Latin Christendomî, but backward, Byzantine, alien. Karl Marx termed the Balkan peoples ìethnic trashî. His colleague Friedrich Engels dismissed Serbs, Bulgarians, and Greeks as ìrobber riff- raffî. Otto von Bismarck warned that the Balkans were not worth the life of a single German soldier at the time of the Bosnian Insurrection of 1875-1878. Through American media and government propaganda, however, Bosnia became not only the center of Europe, but during the civil war, the primary focus for the entire world. The lack of fundamental understanding and grasp of the historical background and issues on the part of diplomats, academics, scholars, and the media, contributed to needlessly prolonging and exacerbating the conflict.

The civil war in Bosnia and Hercegovina was caused and sustained by essentially three major actors: 1) the United States State Department; 2) US public relations firms; and, 3) the American media. The precedent for such an alliance was the very successful performance of all three actors in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which the United States with NATO allies Great Britain and France, waged against former ally and client state Iraq. The paradigm of the Persian Gulf War was transposed upon the civil war in Bosnia and Hercegovina with disastrous results. All three actors perceived the civil war in Bosnia and Hercegovina as Gulf War II. The paradigm for the Persian Gulf War itself was established in 1898 with the Spanish-American War. William Randolph Hearst told Frederick Remington, ìYou furnish the pictures and Iíll furnish the war.î Hearst was a pioneer in realizing that the nature of war had changed. War was now about information, not so much weapons and military strategies. The Spanish-American War became an infowar where pictures and images were the crucial elements. Hearst was ahead of his time. Most military historians and pundits missed this revolutionary change in the nature and concept of modern warfare. As one of the founders of the mass public newspaper, Hearst understood that propaganda techniques would be much more important in the modern mass media and mass communication era. The US government would apply Hearstís infowar paradigm in the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, the Krajina conflict between Yugoslavia and Croatia, Haiti, and Kosovo. Indeed, the initial invading force of Somalia consisted of an army of news reporters and camera crews which televised its own landing on the Somalian coast. US policymakers learned from the Vietnam War debacle that military force by itself is not sufficient. 

Information is crucial in modern war. To defeat an enemy by force alone is to win only half the battle. To have dissent on the domestic front was unacceptable. Total conformity was needed. Everyone had to think alike, to think the same, so that thought could be controlled. This is where pictures and images were paramount, where propaganda and infowar were decisive. Thus, there was a re-emergence of the infowar, of propaganda techniques and ìinformation warfareî first developed by Hearst in the 19th century.
The US State Department, the US media, and public relations firms caused and maintained the bloody civil war in Bosnia and Hercegovina. They based their analyses consciously and unconsciously on ignorance, deceit, malice, racism, power politics, Realpolitik, and incorrect assumptions and a faulty understanding of the background to that conflict. Truth is indeed the first casualty in war.

Infowar and Propaganda: The Problem: Truth as a Casualty of War
Truth is the first victim in war. This dictum is best exemplified in the media manipulations and distortions which characterized the reporting of the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The US State Department and public relations firms have likewise distorted and manipulated the facts and the information concerning the civil war in Bosnia. Along with the thousands of human casualties could be listed truth itself. Along with the crimes committed against humanity were those committed against integrity, decency, fair-play, and justice.

Ever since the civil wars erupted in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, the so-called Western media, at first primarily the newly united Germany, but particularly the American media, presented a daily barrage of news accounts and stories from Bosnia which equated the horrors of that war to the worst of World War II. This media blitzkrieg was an unprecedented and unrelenting onslaught which combined modern media techniques and advocacy journalism. The media became an organized, coherent body, aggressive and strident co-belligerents who perceived themselves as active and partisan combatants in the civil wars. The US government gave them their marching orders, told them that the infowar was being conducted in the name of democracy, freedom, and for a worthy and moral cause, to safeguard the ìvictimsî. The enemy were the Orthodox Serbs. Allies were all who were anti-Serbian: Roman Catholic Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians. All the media reportage had one thing in common: The reporting was partisan, anti-Serbian, and had as its sole purpose and goal to force and to coerce Western governments, particularly the United States, to intervene militarily against the Serbs, i.e., to force an interventionist war against Serbs and against Serbia in a replay of the Persian Gulf War scenario with the Serbian people and Serbia cast in the role of Iraq and as ìaggressorsî. If it worked with Kuwait, why couldnít it work in Bosnia? Needless to say, the US had militarily intervened in Central and South America regularly and periodically throughout the twentieth century not as ìhumanitarian interventionsî but as invasions and occupations to install right-wing dictators in the banana republics to maintain US commercial exploitation. The Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961 against Cuba is an example of just such an intervention.

The Persian Gulf War established the precedent of the modern infowar. The infowar propaganda paradigm was followed during the Yugoslav conflicts. The Bosnian Muslims and Croats hired prominent American public relations firms to advocate and to lobby for their agendas and political programs. These firms manipulated, distorted, and falsified information and facts to support the anti-Serbian policy of the US government and media, working in a symbiotic relationship. These public relations firms racked up phenomenal and spectacular propaganda victories and successes for their clients, the Bosnian Muslims, Croats, and Kosovo Albanians.

The US sought to penetrate Eastern Europe and the Balkans politically, militarily, and commercially, to create a neo-imperialist and neo-colonialist market and sphere of influence in a region where it had been largely excluded. To further these goals, the US State Department became an active and strident sponsor and advocate of secession movements in both the Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia. The State Department perceived that ìsponsorshipî of ìnew statesî would be in the American national interest and would advance ìfreedom and democracyî around the globe. All the neo-imperialist catch-phrases were trotted out which were anachronisms from the Cold War propaganda or information war. NATO, an anachronistic ìdefensiveî military alliance from the Cold War serving no useful military function became the instrument with which the US spearheaded its drive into Eastern Europe and the Balkans. By breaking up and dismembering states in Eastern Europe, the US was promoting ìdemocracyî, ìthe will of the peopleî, ì economic prosperityî, ìfreedomî, and ìfledgling democraciesî. The US State Department thus became, like the US media, a partisan, co-belligerent advocate and actor in favor of secession states. The State Department declared war against the geopolitical status quo that was not in the US national interest: Disintegration, secession, and the creation and emergence of ìnew statesî was good, maintenance of the status quo was bad. Needless to say, this support was highly selective and was based on whether it advanced US political, military, or commercial interests. An independent and free Palestinian state was not supported, Palestinian statehood and freedom were not supported. Likewise, Kurdish autonomy or independence was not supported in Turkey, a NATO member. An independent Corsica and independent Basque state were opposed because France and Spain respectively were NATO members. Freedom and democracy Ýfor them would have to wait. The State Department embarked on a program to unconditionally support and back the secession movements in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia because those nations were not allies, client states, or members of NATO. They were, in short, states with adverse interests to those of the US. Needless to say, such reckless and irresponsible actions resulted in bloody and entangled civil wars which have not been resolved but have resulted in Vietnam-style quagmires for the US.

The Origins and Causes of the Bosnian Civil War, 1992-1995
The civil war in the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina was caused and maintained by three principal actors; 1) US public relations firms; 2) the US media; and, 3) the US State Department. The origins and causes of the inherent ethnic, political, and religious conflicts and antagonisms in Bosnia were ultimately caused by the mutually exclusive national and political agendas of the three Bosnian factions: the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Bosnian Croats, all Slavic and all speaking Serbo-Croatian, but all divided by religion, by culture, and differing national visions. The Bosnian Muslims sought to secede from Yugoslavia but yet to maintain Bosnian borders and the political structure as it had existed in the Yugoslav federation. That is, the Muslims sought an unrealistic and uncompromising maximal position, an all or nothing approach, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. The Bosnian Serbs perceived that the destruction of the Yugoslav federation would necessarily result in the destruction of what it maintained and instituted, the Bosnian Republic, Bosnia-Hercegovina. If Yugoslavia was destroyed, then the internal borders that Yugoslavia created would be destroyed. The so-called international community de-recognized Yugoslavia but recognized arbitrarily the internal borders created by Yugoslavia. In short, to establish Bosnia as an international entity there would have to be bilateral agreement between Yugoslavia and a successor state, Bosnia. But this was precisely what Germany and the US sought to prevent, advocating instead unilateral and unconditional recognition of the internal borders of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was handed a fait accompli. The Bosnian Croats wanted first to detach Bosnia from the Yugoslav federation and then to create their own Croat mini-state, Herceg-Bosna, which would unite with Croatia. These three mutually exclusive and antagonistic agendas were at the root of the conflict and the crisis. Civil war, however, was not inevitable. Otto von Bismarck called politics and diplomacy the ìart of the possibleî. But no diplomacy was apparent. There were no discussions, negotiations, or agreements. Instead, Germany and the US supported unilateral recognition. Germany and the US presented a fait accompli instead of diplomacy. Germany and the US did nothing to prevent a civil war but in fact did everything to encourage and foster it. With the absence of diplomacy or a political agreement, the three Bosnian groups resorted to what Karl von Clausewitz called ìpolitics by other meansî, war. The actions and policies of the US State Department, public relations firms hired by the Bosnian Muslims, Croats, and Albanians and financed by radical and militant Islamic states, and the US media were the direct cause of the civil war which followed and which continued from 1992 to 1995 Ýand greatly contributed to sustaining and exacerbating that war. The key actions and policies of these three key actors will be examined and analyzed in turn.