From: elee7hw@jane.uh.edu (Hegde, Lalitha)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna,soc.culture.croatia
Subject: Re: Good News from U.S.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:07 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C19ntn.Gsw@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca writes...
>Some more comments on:
> 
>In article <1jn8ipINNh1p@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>>
>>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.
> 
>Can you list them, please? I'm not saying that they do not exist,
>but all what I'm saying is this the reason to ``forget about 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.  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.  
> 
>There is one major problem in this reasoning. Namely all sides in
>peaceful solutions came to the point where they agreed that the
>dissolving of country is the best solution for all sides. In ex-YU
>case we have to say that Serbia and Montenegro were not even
>considering such a possibility. So as long the negotiations would go
>on, they would oppose. So what if we put the argument in the opposite
>perspective; what if only Serbia and Montenegro are guilty of war
>because they did not want to follow the voice of other four republics?
> 
>But the main point all together is:
> 
>>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.
> 
>and I have a big problem understanding this. Namely why the country is
>so sacred that nobody is allowed to touch it? IMO country should be in
>service of people and not vice versa.
> 
>>In ex-Yugoslavia,
>>even international principles have been violated by the international 
>>community:  Why were Slovenia, Croatia, and B-H allowed to change the
>>external (international) borders of ex-Yugoslavia? 
> 
>Hm and the argument which as valid as this one is that no border was
>changed (actually this is true in case of neighbouring countries)
>hence no violation happened. But if country dissolved that is the
>other issue. Furthermore, returning to the previous point, the country
>was not serving their people any more and they decided to make another
>one(s). What's wrong here?
> 
>>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 secessions of
>>Croatia and B-H took over 2 million Serbs out of their country (Yugoslavia)
>>against their will.  These Serbs were not spread out homogeneously throughout
>>Croatia and B-H; they lived primarily in certain regions which were both
>>historically and presently settled by them.
> 
>Right. Therefore they should be given autonomy up to negotiated degree
>(note here, that degree is not limited), but that is all. I see no
>reason why fire the war all over ex-YU just to bring these distant
>populations of Serbs into Serbia, do you?
> 
>>They represented 32% of the
>>population of B-H at the start of the war; according to Vance and Owen,
>>Serbs were majority on 60% of the territory of B-H.  Forcing them overnight
>>to be separated from Yugoslavia against their will was most certainly
>>a violation of international law.
> 
>In the same way, as I mentioned in previous posting, would be against
>the law to force 68% of population to stay in Yugoslavia. Which
>violation is bigger (if one can measure size at all)?
> 
>>The war is a consequence of the RECENT actions of Slovenia, Croatia, and
>>B-H, not history.  Events such as ethnic cleansing of Serb villages in
>>Croatia in the months prior to the start of this war.  Events such as
>>secessions which forced people out of their own countries against their
>>will without providing them with guarantees of minority rights.  Events
>>such as secessions without settlements about borders or partition of the
>>Yugoslav debt.  Events such as Croatian adoption of national symbols used
>>by the Ustashe in WWII Nazi puppet State of Croatia (like Germany reviving
>>the Swastika).  Laws which limited property rights, voting rights, 
>>citizenship rights, worker rights, etc. of minorities in Croatia at the
>>time of their secession.  Etc., etc., etc.
> 
>Hm, a couple thoughts here. Whatever is listed above, none of these
>actions was fireing a bullet. Further, what if some (not all) of these
>actions were provoked by something else? And, especially, can you
>point out which of the above actions is the Slovene one? Or the
>attempt was to put some actors in one bag, some actions in the other
>bag and let the reader match them (allthough some of them do not match
>at all)?
> 
>>In the past two years, the war came
>>because of concrete anti-Serb actions in Slo/Cro/B-H; Serbs there did
>>not have to guess what their lives would be like after secession--they
>>were living through it (actually, some of them didn't live through it,
>>they were slaughtered) when they were fired only because they were Serbian,
>>when they were harassed in the middle of the night by thugs who wanted them
>>out of town by morning, when they were prevented from selling their
>>property if they decide to leave instead of fight, when their neighbors
>>disappeared without a trace, when signs were posted ordering immediate
>>evacuation of entire villages.  This is all in the RECENT past, and that
>>is why there is war.
> 
>Please, give the accounts of these claims (specifically for Slovenia)
>or are you playing again the game of two bags?
> 
>With the best regards,
> 
>Andrej
Xref: sparky soc.culture.yugoslavia:10625 soc.culture.europe:11331 soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna:1318 soc.culture.croatia:468