From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna,soc.culture.croatia
Subject: Re: Good News from U.S.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:35:27 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <1993Jan21.232649.29395@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:

>And what's left of Yugoslavia IS negotiating sincerely?  Bah.
>
When Slovenia, Croatia, and B-H were rewarded by the world for NOT
negotiating their secession, why would you expect anyone to negotiate 
seriously any more?   

Nick: 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.
>
What I am saying here is that international principles hold that 
international borders are inviolable; they are supposed to be changed
only through negotiation.  When Slo/Cro/B-H seceded, they changed the
international borders of Yugoslavia without a majority consent of
all citizens of Yugoslavia.  The world knew that Slovenia's secession
was not, BY ITSELF, very problematic.  Slovenia's borders did not
include any large areas of minorities opposing the secession, soo
human rights and civil rights issues were not in the way.  The partition
of Yugoslav debt however was problematic: what portion of the debt
should be apportioned to an independent Slovenia?  This was determined
to be negotiable after the fact by most people.  The big problem with
Slovenia's secession was actually Croatia.  Slovenia's secession and
subsequent recognition was delayed by the fact that Croatia demanded the
same secession "deal" as Slovenia, even though circumstances were vastly
different.  In Croatia, large areas of non-Croats were settled for
centuries, human rights and civil rights were problematic given the
types of laws Croatia was making about non-Croats, even larger questions
about debt apportionment arose.  The U.N. itself said that the conditions
for recognition had not been met.  But then Germany blackmailed the E.C.
and the U.S. followed reluctantly, willing to let Europeans settle a
European issue for once.  B-H did not meet any of the U.N. conditions
for recognition, but again the world pretended not to notice.  So, the
world allowed Slo/Cro/B-h to change the international borders of a founding
member state of the U.N. (yugoslavia) without negotiations.  And, more
than 2 million Serbs overnight no longer lived in the country of their
citizenship (Yugoslavia).   
 
>
Nick: 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.
>
But their civil rights were not guaranteed, and in some areas, their rights
were taken away.  For instance, thousands of Serbs in Croatia were fired
from their jobs simply because they were Serbian.  Work permits were
required (even if you were BORN there, but not as a Croat).  Ethnic
cleansing was starting in Serb villages, so some were NOT left in the
same place, even physically, much less legally.  And some Serbs were
simply murdered, leaving them in quite a different place, I would guess.

The majority of Yugoslavia did not approve the secessions of any of the 
republics.  The terms should have been worked out so there was some
consideration of everybody's rights and dreams.  Everyone would have had
to compromise on some things, but a just settlement of borders, debt
apportionment, minority rights guarantees, etc. could have been mediated.
The world didn't even try.  True, the internal negotiations stalled, but
the world could have put pressure on the republics to reach a settlement,
and helped negotitate the terms.  Instead, the green light was given to
the secession movements by Germany and backed up by arms sales, undermining
any further negotiations.  
 

Nick: 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?

This was brought to the attention of the world.  Nobody cared because the
media was already painting Serbs as the black hats before the war by 
referring to Milosevic as a "Communist", but Tudjman (Croatia) and Kucan
(Slovenia) as democrats.  In fact, they are ALL ex-Communists, and not just
small time Communists either!  Yugoslavia was being painted as the last
bastion of Communism in Europe, with the Serbs at fault, when actually,
Yugoslavia had effectively dispensed with Communism long before the collapse
of the U.S.S.R.  

Serbs have been the victims of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo for 50 years
continuously.  Tito made Kosovo (a province of Serbia) autonomous after
WWII, but left it within the borders of the Republic of Serbia.  He
encouraged illegal Albanian immigration into Kosovo and refused to use
federal troops to enforce Kosovo's border with Albania.  Tito also 
prevented the Republic of Serbia from using its own forces to enforce the
Kosovo border even though Kosovo was part of Serbia.  Thus, since WWII,
Kosovo has changed from about 50% Serbian to 10% Serbian.  Some were
forced out violently, some sold their property because they were afraid
of the violence, some were killed.  Tito's transfer of power from Serbs
in Kosovo to the Albanians left Serbs there without federal or republican
protection of their human and civil rights.  This problem is one which
is still going on, although Serbia has reasserted its rights to govern
territory within Serbia proper (which Kosovo is).  I personally think that
Serbia should eventually trade some of Kosovo for some of B-H and Croatia,
in recognition of the current distribution of ethnicities being more 
important than the past.  But why should Serbia negotiate this delicate
matter when the world rewards those who do NOT negotiate?  

Croatia has
troops in B-H, Croatia violates the no-fly zone, Croatia violates the arms
embargo, Croatia violates human and civil rights of minorities, Croatia
is grabbing land in B-H (Herceg-Bosna), Croatia is guilty of ethnic
cleansing, Croatia is guilty of having atrocious POW camps, etc.  WHY ARE
THERE NO SANCTIONS ON CROATIA???  What message do you think that sends to
Serbia and ethnic Serbs in other countries?

-Nick
 




 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia