From: mitrovic@tik.ethz.ch (Srdjan Mitrovic)
Subject: Re: The goal of an intervention
Organization: TIK, ETH Zuerich, Switzerland
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.044411.12930@unixland.natick.ma.us>
sharon@unixland.natick.ma.us (Sharon Machlis Gartenberg) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.101733.4885@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
writes:
>
>>According to an article from Vreme, George Bush said the following
>>a while ago: "Before I send our forces into battle, I want to know
>>what the beginning, goal and end will be. I don't see any answers
>>to my questions." I think that very much coincides with own sentiments.
>>
>>One may claim that the goal for an armed action in B-H is to
>>resurrect B-H as an independent state, 
>
>Yes, that's exactly what the goal would be. More precisely, to restore
>what most of the world views as the legitimate government of Bosnia-
>Herzegovina, and stop those who wish to defeat that government by
>military means, including large-scale attacks and terror upon civilians.

The question is could such a state exist at all? It has never existed
before. Suppose the West enforces the rule of Izetbegovic against 
Croatian and Serbian wish. Could it exist? And if yes how long?
Regarding democratic election: If in Switzerland the german speaking
part votes for something like forbidding french language, then would 
this be democracy? In my opinion, the majority system can only work in 
stable tolerant states. Which was never the case for B&H.
To sum up: I believe that Izetbegovic could rule B&H only with strong military
power in B&H, suppressing all minorities (i.e., everybody except Muslims)
Of course it would be nicer when all nations of B&H could live happily
with one president regardless its nationality. But let's be honest: 
Is this possible?

>
>I would not like to see either Serbs or Croats who wanted to stay in
>an independent BiH driven out of their homes. I doubt that George
>Bush cares about the rights or sufferings of any people that don't 
>further his re-election chances. But, assuming the West wanted to 
>to try to ensure the human rights of the Serb minority there, I
>believe it would be possible to assure a Western role in monitoring
>the protection of the Serb civilian population there in exchange for
>military help. 

Why can't it work in Croatia then? I mean it was the same style,
let's recognize Croatia and then the international monitors will
take care of Serbian minority rights. Nothing like that. Cutting
telephone lines, arresting, molesting and torturing Serbs outside the war
regions are still too often heard. And the Croatian government has never
done anything although they must know about it. (Source is 
an Austrian politician of Croatian origin). The stuff with monitors
will not work, people tend to forget as long as they do not hear it
on the TV's often enough. I doubt that there is a moral responsibility
in the politicians of Western states.

>
>How to ensure the rights of all the people there? Certainly not by
>doing nothing as a heavily armed, ultra-nationalist force sweeps in
>to "ethnically cleanse" large swaths of territory, and terrorize and
>destroy the republic's capital. Some sort of political situation could
>be worked out, with various districts having a high degree of autonomy. ...
>but the bombardment of civilians HAS TO STOP. That has to be a
>priority!!!
>
>I repeat: Why intervention in Kuwait and not BiH? The fact that after
>the Gulf War, Palestinians in Kuwait were arrested and expelled from
>the country did not seem to bother Mr. Bush. I can't believe he has
>a sudden attack of conscience worrying about post-war Bosnia.
>
>The Middle East is no less a complicated place than what is/was
>Yugoslavia.

I agree that the killing and fighting has to stop, the sooner the better.
The question is how. I do not know how to improve the situation in B&H.
I think it is wrong to ask something to be done and that "some sort"
of solution will come by itself. This "some sort"  of solution
must be found before. I do not think that B&H population could
endure many more "mistakes". That's why people tend to be
against doing something..In Kuwait the goals were clear: restore the
old order that worked. In B&H "the old order" never worked.

>
>Is the best alternative to do nothing as defenseless civilians are
>trapped without food and water, as babies are dying (2 today) because
>power is shut off to hospitals, as people are being held in camps where
>they are beaten, starved, and some are randomly chosen to be shot, as
>scores of civilians are killed every day by artillery bombardment and
>snipers? Is this the best solution the world can come up with?
>

IMO, there are many  worse solutions than the todays but it does not 
mean that it is adequate. I believe that only stable solution can be
brought by diplomatic ways. 

Srdjan

>-- 
>Sharon Machlis Gartenberg
>Framingham, MA  USA
>email: sharon@unixland.natick.ma.us   or   uunet!think.com!unixland!sharon
>


Xref: sparky soc.culture.yugoslavia:8553 soc.culture.greek:8553 eunet.politics:1224