From: bil@burka..aix.kingston.ibm.com (Igor Belchinskiy)
Subject: Re: "democratic" Estonia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:16:21 GMT
Organization: Be. I am.

Some ramblings, not quite on with subject...

In article <Aug.27.14.24.05.1992.4493@pilot.njin.net> hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:
>
>
>It seems like the real point is being evaded.
>
>Country/Nation/People XX invade a piece of territory YY; invade, here
>means take by force, meaning again that against the wishes of
>the majority of the people living there.
>
>We wait for some time period TT...
>
>What happens to the people of XX origin? Are they still invaders,
>colonizers, interlopers, foreigners?
>
>The answer seems to depend on the identity of XX and YY and the
>length of time TT, and even the time period in discussion, and
>even the ethnicity of the discussers.

The answer mostly depends on ethnicity of XX and YY, nation age 
and their compatibility. And climate. And spots on Sun.
And the result may be anywhere between two extremes:
	XX and YY may live peacefully (comparatively speaking)
	and form a new nation or super-ethnos;
	XX and YY may fight until complete destruction of one of the nations.
History gives you examples of every kind (Latin America; Rome vs. Hunns).
And there is no general receipt - considering number of variables
involved.

I can recommend only books by Lev Gumilev.

>If we make TT too long, then we'd have to leave America to
>the Indians.  

Politics do not consider noble or not-quite-so past in making 
current decisions - though they actively use current moods of 
society (e.g. like weight of memory of good old days without XX
or popularity and reality of idea of throwing XX away). Some of them
are unresponsible enough to try to grab whatever they can - 
and only the balance of powers (not necessarily 
those of armies or nukes - there are a lot of others - e.g. ability
of YY nation to withstand invaders) may stop them.

>IF we make TT zero or very short, then we leave
>weak countries as fair game to the stronger ones; that is any
>strong country can invade any smaller/weaker country and
>colonize it, since within a few years it will be possible to fill
>up the territory with young people (newly weds) who will produce
>enough offspring who will be born in that place and thus claim
>citizenship.
>
>How long should TT be ?  Should it always stay the same or should
>we insist that UN principles be enforced? 

BTW, existence of rather strong (or is it?) UN is current reality.
UN principles were created by aged, quiet and tired nations not long ago.
They are very peaceful. Would UN be the same force hundred years from now?

Anyway, answers to your questions: It depends. All that depends...

(Un-) Fortunately general principles are usually unusable in any
real situation. Maybe it's good - I don't want to see 
how the Earth would explode when somebody would try 
to enforce UN principles in hard communist China.
(Or communist principles in all other world).
Be patient, as they say.

And about Estonia - little Finland was able to withstand Stalin,
Estonia didn't make a try.

But real point is - how many Estonians are there, how many other 
nation peoples, what's different nation's population density in 
different places, what's average time other nations' people lived
in Estonia, how intelligent Estonians (as current rulers)
consider themselves and would like to be considered in the world,
how avanturistique (definitely wring spelling :-) are current
government and opposition and how far nationalistic leaders
on both sides (really more then 2 sides - I believe there
are a lot of Poles at least, and then that eternal Jews)
are ready to go, and so on, etc, etc....

	-igor