From: josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 20:45:33 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <1992Dec26.110344.23069@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

[ they = Croatian leadership: ]
>
>Whatever they did, they did very little to get the Serbs in Croatia
>on their side. Instead they, deliberately or by unskillness, alienated
>the their Serbs from a Croatian state.
 
If you think that this is THE problem, you are wrong.  If you think that
the Croatian leadership, in their struggle to protect Croatia from
Milosevic, could have completely avoided alienating Croatian Serbs, 
you are also wrong.  Furthermore, not all Croatian Serbs were 
alienated, and in fact many of them had defended Croatia
(in Vukovar, Sibenik, Dubrovnik, etc.).
 
You are on a false trail.  Even if the Croatian leadership had done
a lot more than they did to get the Serbs in Croatia on their side,
Belgrade policy would have been the same, and the outcome would
have been the same.  One thing which might have been different 
is now seen in Bosnia:  by bending over backwards to prevent 
alienating their Serbs, defense of the country might have been
neglected.
 
Do not misunderstand me:  I think Croatian Serbs have legitimate
concerns which must be addressed.  But, the first priority of
any government is defense, and Croatia was under attack, politically
and later militarily.  
 
>Josip Loncaric (josip@eng.umd.edu) writes:
>>A Wolf came upon a Lamb straying from the flock and felt reluctance
>>...
>>Erland would like Croatia to be the Lamb.  The moral of this story is
>>"don't be the Lamb."  Bosnia-Herzegovina had the misfortune of finding
>>out what it's like to be the Lamb.  The trouble is, Erland and many
>>other observers had bought the Wolf's (Serbs') story.
>
>Being innocent lamb is not an excuse for being stupid. As I've said,
>if I cross the street on green light, but is run owner by car driver
>who ignores his red light, the fault is his and only his. But never-
>theless I could have avoided the accident. And I am not less dead be-
>cause I'm innocent.
 
Were the Croatian leaders stupid or simply without any good options?
I would argue the latter.  If Erland is so much smarter than the
Croatian leadership, why doesn't he propose (even with the benefit
of hindsight) how Croatia could have defended itself from Milosevic
without "being stupid"?  
 
>The lamb should have stayed with the flock. Croatia and B-H should have 
>analysed the consequences of their plans before going ahead.
 
Aha.  So here it is, at last, Erland wants Croatia and B-H to submit
to the Milosevic dictatorship.  This is simply unrealistic.  You can
turn back the clock, but you cannot stop time.    Yugoslav idea
was crushed by reality: the nations which came together to form
Yugoslavia found it suffocating and had to get out.  Let me quote
a Croatian (Dr. Slobodan Lang) who put it very clearly:
 
   "No matter how much one respects Yugoslavia's history,
   in its current form it is an instrument of hate and people
   will live more harmoniously if it breaks down.   For me,
   personally, Yugoslavia in recent times is a symbol of
   killing Albanians.  Now it is killing everybody.  To get
   rid of Yugoslavia is to stop the killing."
 
Staying in Yugoslavia simply isn't an option for Croatia, nor for
anyone else even including some Serbs.  Yugoslavia has turned into
a weird alloy of communism and fascism, united in their common 
striving for power by their Serbian proponents over everyone.  No 
wonder everyone else had to get out.
 
>Just because Milosevic, Karadzic, Arkan etc are the worst crooks in
>this sad affair, does not mean that whatever Croatian and Muslims
>do, it is the right thing. Croatian and Muslim leaders have made many
>severe mistakes in this tragic story, and their "innocence" does not
>protect them.
 
Nobody argued that "whatever" Croats and Muslims do is the right thing.
What I'm saying is that Croatia could not have avoided being attacked
by being even more accommodating to its Serbian minority.  Simply put,
bending over backwards to satisfy the Croatian Serbs was, as a strategy
for defending Croatia from Milosevic, simply unworkable.  
 
Of the three republics attacked by Serbs (Slovenia, Croatia, B-H), Slovenes
were the best prepared for armed defense and they suffered the least.  
Croats wanted to avoid the war by diplomacy, but when Croatia was
attacked anyway, they managed to create basic defenses.  B-H trusted
negotiations the most and armed defense the least, but it was attacked
anyway and suffered the most.  This tells me something: the key to
stopping this carnage is capable self-defense.  
 
>What is so depressing with reading s.c.yu & co is that so many
>Serbo-Croat posters only can find the fault with the other side.
>If everyone would concentrate on the mistakes committed by their
>own side, this would be a much more constructive place.
 
Erland, if you'd like to talk about mistakes made by the Croatian side,
we can do that.  But, "you-brought-war-on-yourselves-because-you-
were-not-nice-enough-to-Serbs" is simply incorrect.  Moreover, it
stinks of blaming the victim in order to exculpate those who
contributed to this carnage by refusing the victim even the
right of self-defense.
 
Josip