From: scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn)
Subject: Re: Good News from U.S.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:26:49 GMT

jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
: You entirely miss my point that what Serbians have done in B-H does not
: compare in any way with what Germans did in WWII.  No extermination camps
: have ever been found,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gee, what a concept.  Of course they aren't being "found".  When the Red
Cross tried to get access, they were denied.

: Now, here is where idealism and practicality clash: if you want to intervene
: in countries which have human rights problems, but which do not attack
: other countries, there is a terribly long list of countries to intervene
: in.  The U.N. Secretary General himself identified at least TEN countries
: which have more severe internal problems with their populations than exist
: in B-H.  Countries make decisions based on the "rules" that the international
: community makes.  The world will not be a more orderly place unless these
: "rules" are applied fairly to all countries.

True.  But then again, you have to start somewhere.  Stating that you aren't
allowed to do anything until you can cover all other problems immediately
will make it so nothing gets done.

: The Soviet Union and more
: recently Czechoslovakia demonstrated how the dissolution of a country can
: be negotiated rather peacefully.  They should be rewarded.  The territories
: of ex-Yugoslavia demonstrated quite the opposite so far.  None of them
: negotiated sincerely, and they should not be rewarded, i.e., Slovenia,
: Croatia, and B-H should not have been recognized.  

And what's left of Yugoslavia IS negotiating sincerely?  Bah.

: The final point here that I will make is that if you advocate intervention
: into another country, then other countries have the right to advocate
: intervention in your country according to the international "rules" that 
: are agreed upon.

This is a reasonable point.

: Why were Slovenia, Croatia, and B-H allowed to change the
: external (international) borders of ex-Yugoslavia? 

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

: Yes, blatant.  Secessions and border changes are supposed to be negotiated.
: Secessions which take compact ethnic regions out of a country against the
: will of those people is against international doctrine.

The will of which people?  1% of the population? 2%? 30%?  Is there a number
given, or can a single person who objects can the whole thing?

: The secessions of
: Croatia and B-H took over 2 million Serbs out of their country (Yugoslavia)
: against their will.

1) It left them in the same place, physically.
2) The majority voted for secession.

Now, if there is something in International Law which states that X% of the
people have to agree, and they were below that amount, I can see a violation.

: Forcing them overnight
: to be separated from Yugoslavia against their will was most certainly
: a violation of international law.

I'd like to see this law.  Could you please post the applicable reference?
I'm not familiar with it (really).

: I disagree.  Many Serbs bring up history because it affects the way people
: think and act in the present.  But the history is NOT the cause of the war
: and I have rarely heard Serbs claim that history is the cause of the war.

We've obviously been reading different forums, or else we have vastly
different interpretations of some of the articles.

: Events such as ethnic cleansing of Serb villages in
: Croatia in the months prior to the start of this war.

This should have been brought to the attention of the world.  Why wasn't it?

: Perhaps armed intervention is
: the only thing that will gain U.S. compliance with U.N. resolutions?  

Please state which UN resolutions are pending against the US which need to
be complied with.

: And who was in front just before the war?  Just before the secessions?
: Who made the first land grabs in the current war?  Who committed the
: first ethnic cleansings?  Who is violating the no-fly zone more often?

Again, it winds down to "He hit me".  "Did not".  "Did too!".

By the way, Serbia is violating the no-fly zone the most often, by a vast
margin.  In December, however, Serbia let up somewhat, and Croatia then
had more total violations.

: Which country's troops are invading B-H?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here (Croatia)?  If so, that still
doesn't excuse what the Serbs are doing.  Why the encirclement of Sarajevo,
the shelling (1000+ shells counted by multiple UN observers on the day
Karadzic signed the peace plan)?

: All of this is as pointless as blaming ancient history for the war. 
: The point is to reach a settlement regarding the just claims of all the
: sides.  And all of the sides do have just claims.  All of the sides also
: have outrageous claims, unscrupulous scoundrels, and bloodthirsty criminals.
: These people won't be any help in creating a lasting peace, but they are
: the ones who will profit by escalating the war.  I would urge you not to
: play into their hands.  

And I likewise would urge you not to play into their hands.


Scott Linn
scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com