From: josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Getting to the truth about detention camps & human rights abuses
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:00:56 GMT
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <1992Aug23.203233.23133@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Something like Tuesday 11th Josip Loncaric (josip@src.umd.edu) said:
>>>>Being blamed does not mean you are guilty.  In fact, Croats and Bosnian
>>>>Muslims have all along been striving to make their detention policy follow
>>>>the applicable conventions.  To ensure this, the ICRC has been conducting
>>>>inspections, and recently reported that no major abuses were found.
>                ======================================================
>
>I replied a few days later:
>>>But since then ICRC has published a report with fierce critique
>>>against all sides. 12 camps on all sides had been expected, and
>
>[...]
>
>In any case, Josip's statement was falsified when the ICRC report
>was published a day later, in which critique was directed to all
>sides.
>
>I don't want to dismiss Helsinki Watch or any organization you
>may want to refer to, but we were discssing the Red Cross and
>they did report that all sides were abusing the Geneva convention,
>while Josip Lonaric tried to give the impression that they had
>to say something different.
>
>I don't know about you, but for me truth is something to be
>careful with.
>-- 
>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
>Life is wonderful when the wonderlife is full

Context: discussion of differences between camps visited by the ICRC and
those not visited by the ICRC, in early August 1992.

As the originator of the "no major abuses" claim, I believe I owe
at least a clarification.  By "major abuses" I meant the kinds of
routine treatment which brought disturbing images reminiscent of WWII
concentration camps.  The ICRC, as it turns out, did report that
all sides were abusing the Geneva convention, but their statement
contained no information on what kinds of abuses were involved,
nor did they indicate that they had found anything as disturbing.

At that time, the ICRC had still NOT inspected Omarska, Trnopolje, etc.,
the places where "major abuses" were reported.  At the same time,
there were no similar reports comming from those camps which WERE inspected
by the ICRC.  The only logical conclusion was that there was a major
difference between Omarska, Trnopolje, etc., and those camps inspected
by the ICRC.

Perhaps my choice of words was inadequate: are the abuses found by the
ICRC properly called "major abuses" or just "abuses"?  In hindsight,
this distinction should not have been left so vague and perhaps misleading.
However, the fact remains that nothing similar to Omarska and
Trnopolje has been reported in media accessible to me (and I do follow
this closely) in those camps visited by the ICRC.  My conclusion was
and still is that there is a significant difference between the camps
the ICRC was allowed to inspect, and those which they were not allowed to see.

Clearly, the ICRC must remain impartial and apolitical.  But they also have
a duty to alert the world if something is seriously wrong.  They had not
alerted the world (based on information available to them), so my conclusion
was (and still is) that the situation they had seen did not warrant speaking
out forcefully.  This was the reasoning behind my claim that no "major" abuses
were found.  I have seen no reports which would bring this reasoning into
question, even after weeks of media scrutiny.

I'm not sure how to say all of this in half a sentence without resorting
to a distinction based on the word "major".  I apologize to all who may
have found the resulting statement misleading, but it sounded clear enough to
me at the time, in the context of news reports at the time.  

Josip Loncaric

P.S. There is no question that all sides ought to abide by the applicable
conventions on the treatment of prisoners.  In former Yugoslavia, this
is not always the case (e.g. I've been told that the "JNA" army training
did not include any teaching of the Geneva conventions).  Even so, another
level of inhumanity is crossed when destroying people becomes a policy.  
This question was at the root of the original debate.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.bulgaria,soc.culture.turkish