From: medvidov@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Nenad Medvidovid)
Subject: Re: Pluralist Bosnia?
Followup-To: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Reply-To: medvidov@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Nenad Medvidovic)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:19:20 GMT

In article <1jnitu$ptc@agate.berkeley.edu> boyle@kirkuk.berkeley.edu (Joseph Boyle) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.210836.18027@ennews.eas.asu.edu> medvidov@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Nenad Medvidovid) writes:
>>	I do not intend to dispute your statement that Bosnian gov't and
>>armed forces do indeed include Croats and Serbs.  Probably true, although I
>>would for once like to see a name, any name, associated with the Bosnian army
>>or gov't that wasn't Muslim.  But then, of course, it would just make me wonder
>
>I thought they were about to hand the presidency to Stepan Kljuic, a Croat.
>And, for the reasons I gave, it's not surprising that mostly Muslims are left
>in the government-held areas.
>

	Point well taken.  As much as I try to stay on top of most of the
developments in ex-Yu, I wasn't aware that Mr. Kljuic is to replace Mr.
Izetbegovic.  Next time I'll do my homework first, for god knows there are
plenty of other un-, under-, and mis-informed people out there making
judgements, shaping the public opinion, and even creating and implementing
national policies on Yugoslavia.

>
>But, the main thing I was saying was just that the Bosnian government has a
>stated committment to human rights and pluralism, and could be made to stick
>to it with adequate foreign pressure, and so should be supported over the
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>murderous Serbian Republic of B-H.
>

	Having a government that is committed to human rights and pluralism
is more than probably a majority of countries in the world could say about
themselves.  However, I am inclined to argue that this is not the issue in
B-H, at least from the Serbian point of view.
	Surely, "adequate foreign pressure" could have helped alleviate all the
dissatisfaction and fears of non-Serbian ethnic groups in the 
"Serb-dominated Yugoslavia" (boy, have I gotten sick of that label) before the
country and many of its people were butchered up in a hurry.  But, unlike the
western news media who would have you believe that it was the Serbian oppression
of others that fostered the break-up, I claim that it was simply the fact that
Slovenes, Croats, and Bosno-Herzegovinians (hopefully a politically-correct 
term) wanted a land of their own.  Of course, having a bad guy to blame it all
on did not hurt at all.
	So, now, as a Bosnian Serb, one has a country whose "government has a
stated committment to human rights and pluralism," certainly more than the
government in Serbia is supposed to have committed to, but ONE DOES NOT WANT TO 
LIVE IN THAT COUNTRY.  I don't by any means excuse ANY of the ways in which
that particular displeasure has been demonstrated any more than I accept the
ways in which Slovenia, Croatia, and B-H arrived at their independence.  But,
I ask you, if you lived in southern Arizona like I do, and the Hispanic majority
voted to secceed from the union while claiming its committment to human rights
and pluralism, would you stay here and live with it?  If the African-Americans 
of Mississippi did the same thing, could you live with it?  It is easy for us 
to brand and categorize (and even impose on others what we think is right) here,
in the U.S., because we can always switch from Peter Jennings to Major Dad.  
Those people over there don't have the same luxury.

>
>>further how it is that, while they had no intentions of living in the same
>>country - Yugoslavia - Muslims, Croats, and Serbs (at least some of the latter
>>two) have no problem living together and fighting for B-H.  And, please, do not
>>give me the "Serbian dominated" arguments.  I lived in the ex-Yugoslavia most of
>>my life and can be the judge of that for myself (i.e. I don't buy it for a
>>moment).
>
>I'm sure a lot of people would love to have the old Yugoslavia back;
>it's being considered an enemy minority in someone else's rump state
>that they object to so strenuously.  I'm not dogmatic about how many
>pieces Yugoslavia is divided into, just that they all have governments
>that respect human rights.  And I don't expect it to happen by itself;
>that's why outside intervention is necessary.
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	I think not!  I don't mean to insult anybody, but all these self-styled
"experts" scare me much more than all the Chetniks, Ustashes, and 
Mujahedeen combined.  Who and what is that outside intervention to target?
The aggressor? Fine, but who is the aggressor over there?  Think about it
before you blurt out: "the Serbs."  Are you absolutely sure?  If Ted Coppel
says that they are and I say that they are not, who are you going to believe
and why?  See what I am trying to say?  I lived in Yugoslavia for 20 years -
- he (and most other "experts") never did and probably did not know much
about it before this war.  Yet, they will have us all believe each and every
word they feed us.

>
>>	However, I would appreciate it if you could substantiate your claim that
>>"only Serbs and Croats are welcomed as refugees in Serbia and Croatia."  Whereas
>>it has only been hinted by the press that there are a number of Muslims who
>>escaped to Serbia (this claim has been floating around relatively often lately),
>>how can you possibly deny (or ignore) the fact that Croatia has embraced (more
>>or less) tens of thousands of Muslim refugees?
>>	There is plenty of blame to go around in Yugoslavia.  Let's give some
>>credit where it is due as well.
>
>I credit Croatia with sheltering Muslim refugees, but they closed the
>border to new refugees quite a while ago (June?) after Western
>countries wouldn't take anybody.  Press reports said Croat refugees
>were still allowed through.  Later, flight of Muslims into
>"Herceg-Bosna" was turned back by the Prozor massacre.  Most recent
>press reports said 400,000 (!) Muslim refugees were in Croatia, but
>that the Croatian government was threatening to send them all back to
>punish the Bosnian government for not withdrawing from Gornji Vakuf,
>etc.
>

	Hey, it's a dog-eat-dog world out there and Croatia is not exactly
Japan economically right now.  When I said in my last post that there is
plenty of blame to go around, that included the western-European countries
as well.  They are, for the most part, not willing to take any more refugees
but are willing to bomb the hell out of the place (killing more innocent people)
so that some fictional peace could be accomplished, the flow of refugees could
stop, and the "new world order" could focus its attention on the next bad guy.
Give me a break!

>
>I've repeatedly seen estimates of 50-60,000 unregistered Muslim
>refugees in Serbia, as compared to 600,000 registered Serb refugees.
>Apparently the refugees who are officially welcome are Serbs who are
>not evading being drafted into the Serb army.  Let's give Serbia
>credit for not hunting the Muslims down and killing them like the
>Serbian Republic of BiH would.  But then, hunting them down would
>make the pretense that Serbia is not involved in the war look even
>less believable.
>

	I don't believe I can make an effective counter-argument to your
last paragraph.  The general dislike for the Serbs, fueled by many a news
report (many of them true, others fabricated), is so pronounced everywhere
one turns that, even when a genuine act of humanity and compassion
is shown, it is interpreted as just another ploy to deceive.  Much as it
bothers me, I would have about as much success in trying to pursuade you
otherwise as I usually do trying to explain to my own mother that Serbs have
done some darn awful things in the last two years (she lives in Belgrade).

Peace,

Nenad Medvidovic