From: news@cc.swarthmore.edu (USENET News System)
Subject: YUGOWAR: WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TOMMORROW?
Originator: vuksan@ginger
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:34:30 GMT

****************************************************
The following text has been written by:
Ivo Skoric, 103 St Marks pl, New York, NY 10009, USA
telephone:(212) 995-5601 e-mail: iskoric@igc.apc.org
****************************************************


@3 YUGOWAR: WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TOMORROW?
(UN PROTECTORATE, MILITARY INTERVENTION..)
 
Thinking about solution you think, can't help about that, military
intervention or simply giving up. The west is doing exactly that:
bluffing. West treatens Serbia with massive build up of military
force in Adriatic and in Italian NATO bases. On the other hand the
west, by indefinitely delaying the decision to use that military
force, forces Bosnian government to bow to Serbian strength. West
is aware of potential danger that war spread souther to Greece and
Turkey, both NATO countries (what would send NATO the way Warszaw
Pavt went). If west finally decide to do the air-strikes, it would
not be to save the people of Bosnia, but to protect their own
selfish interests.
Although belonging to the group supporting military solution if
neccessary, I understand obvious shortcomings of that solution.
Intervention would definitely mean sacrificing parts of UN forces
and a lot of Bosnian civilians, particularly in Sarajevo. Following
the murphy's law (that is particularly applicable to war) bombing
would kill a lot of Serbian peasants and workers, and will not even
scratch any of army generals, Milosevic's politicians and Milosevic
itself. Milosevic would appear, after the bombing, as Saddam did
in Iraq, stronger and more popular than ever. Don't forget that
Serbian construction company Energoprojekt, that built Saddam's
underground military facilities, built also the Yugoslav Army
military shelters. And don't forget that the U.S. know everything
about it: Energoprojekt was a client of Lawrence Eagleburger, now
acting Secretary of State, while he was the president of Kissinger
and Associates. Serbian mazochist and self-destructive myth that
they are the principal victim, the scapegoat, the crucified Christ
of this decadent World, would be reinforced and tenfolded by
suffering the consequences of a military intervention.
 
So, the west is looking for the solution inbetween military
intervention and giving up. The U.S. believes that the solution is
in a change of government in Serbia. In order to topple Milosevic
a U.S. industrialist Milan Panic will run in elections against him,
and elections would be monitored by G.O.P. Americans. But Milosevic
is not stupid. He not only allowed the elections, but encouraged
a half dozen populist adventurers to run against him and against
Panic in the elections. Milosevic knows that he still gets about
one quarter to one third of electorate, and he also knows that
other 65-75% of Serbian citizens are to confused to be sure for
whom to vote, and will vote for most simple and primitive political
program possible. Two millions Albanians from Kosovo would probably
boycott the elections. However, Milosevic is afraid that if they
vote they would vote for Panic. So he created a situation where
there is a lot of candidates. Among others: a mercenary soldier who
fought for imperialist racist causes in Southern Africa before he
came to organize guerilla in Serbian enclaves in Croatia, former
hired gun of Yugoslav secret police who is wanted on charges of
murder in several European states and who run Belgrade's
underground, an orthodox fundamentalist turned democrat, a shady
banker who organized a chess game Fischer-Spassky to defy UN
embargo rules against Serbia, a guy who said in parliament that he
(or his brutal extremist forces) would cut the hand of any Bosnian
who did not salute with three fingers (Serbian popular war-
salute)...  So whom will you vote for? All candidates have
character, no doubt about it.
 
The other idea came from British strategists. And was
wholeheartedly adopted by Helsinki Citizens Assembly: the U.N.
protectorate for Bosnia (and Serbian enclaves in Croatia). I think
the idea is a half-way idea, and definitely lacks plans for the
enforcement. Why don't we include in a UN protectorate entire ex-
Yugoslavia - (Slovenia + (Croatia - Serbian enclaves))? All of that
territory may fall apart at any moment. There is this very peculiar
habit of the west to start thinking about doing something when it
is to late, but refuses to do anything somewhere where it still
could help. The other thing is - to enforce the protectorate of any
size you need troops, a lot of them to police the protectorate, and
if they would just play a police - they would be armed less than
the Serb forces in Bosnia.
If Serb forces would grow dissatisfied with the protectorate
policies, they may decide about blue helmets as about favorite
target-practice. Attempts to remove or disarm Serb (and Croat, if
they would be uncooperative, too) extremists would have to be
acompained with the argument of military force, what makes military
intervention a precondition to establishing of UN protectorate.
 
Situation in Somalia and ex-Yugoslavia made me think about the
Global Forces:
 
(next item on the conference)

Xref: sparky soc.culture.yugoslavia:10091 soc.culture.bulgaria:1914 soc.culture.greek:11552 soc.culture.europe:10523