From: josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 04:06:46 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <Dec.27.18.29.04.1992.22530@andromeda.rutgers.edu> pshane@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ana M. Shane) writes:
>josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>
>Josip, the Croatian government motives to secede from Yugoslavia
>were first and foremost concerned with their own power, and everything
>else was in the function of this.

That is not my reading of the situation.  The citizens of Croatia have
voted for sovereignty; and then confirmed this decision even more
decisively at the referendum on Croatian independence.  True, leaders
(everyhere) want power.  But, why didn't the people elect other
leaders with different political programs?  Simple: because the
people see what they face, and have their own ideas on how to
deal with this.  Thus, they elected those who would take them where
they want to go.

If you are a true democrat, you accept this.  It is up to the citizens
of Croatia to decide whether their leadership is doing things right.

>But unfortunately the policies of the Republic of Croatia were not
>even passively or remotely guaranteeing equality of Croatian citizens,
>and the active Tudjamn's campaign was grounded on the most extreme
>nationalism and chauvinism, the laws that were passed were discriminatory,
>the "incidents" of nationalist crimes against Serbs were NOT punished
>and their perpetrators not prosecuted. The country's regime today may
>be characterized as a dictatorship with no freedom of speach and no free
>media, and with intentional prevention of international communications
>by post, telegraph, and telephone (which is against the international
>laws even when two countries are in war).

The constitution guaranteed equality to all citizens.  There was plenty
of opportunity to contest any inequality in court and have it corected.
The same is true of whatever measures the Croatian government undertook
or failed to undertake regarding Croatian Serbs.  Law, public opinion
pressure, etc. do work, and in fact are the only way to fine-tune
a complex society (eg. the USA).  There is no need to go to war over
this, you go to court first.

Regarding communications in Croatia today, the situation is not up
to Western standards, but there is much more diversity than before.
Again, the citizens of Croatia have to insist on freedom of the press,
but this does not develop overnight.  A lot of people have a lot to learn
(the USA has 200+ years of experience in this); it may take a while, but
it will happen, especially after the basic need -- physical security --
is restored.

>>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.  
>
>No the outcome would not be the same, since without Croatian Serbs
>the Belgrade government could not have played the "protection-of-
>Serbs" game, and would not get even the small support they have
>now in Serbia.... (Yes, small : the electorial results are a complete
>fraud).

I think you are deluding yourself if you think that the Serbian electoral
results are a complete fraud.  If Milosevic did not control the Belgrade
TV, perhaps things would have been different.  But, he would not have had
any trouble playing his "protection-of-Serbs" game even with 10 times fewer
Croatian Serbs to help him.  So, the outcome would be the same: war.
The problem is not Croatian Serbs (who can get generous terms in Croatia)
but Milosevic's decision to use them to pressure Croatia.

>>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."
>> 
>There were many different ways to "get rid" of Yugoslavia - or
>if you wish: the opressive regime that was suffocating everyone
>in Yugoslavia. It was in the interest of Croatian and of Slovenian and
>of Bosnian and of Serbian and of Macedonian peoples TOGETHER to
>"get rid" of the regime. 

Yes -- and they tried to act TOGETHER, but they failed.  Milosevic
was winning in taking over the regime and destroying what little
freedom it offered.  However, it is wishful thinking that these
republics opposed to Milosevic could have formed a coalition which
he could not break.  After all, he had won over the army to his side.
All he had to do was press one republic, tell others that they would
not be destroyed, and they would be blocked because they were not certain
he was lying.  This is not unique to these republics: ANY coalition can
be broken given sufficient force, selectively applied.

So, the republics ended up facing him alone.  Divide et impera at work
one more time.

>Staying together and changing the overall regime was the only option
>for the people of Yugoslavia to avoid the war. 

Perhaps.  But yearning for freedom is strong in human beings, they
do not submit to tyrany easily, and this is not the first war
fought over freedom.  One more thing: it is not "the people of
Yugoslavia" but "the peopleS of Yugoslavia".  Yugoslavia was
a multinational federation, which could never function as anything
other than a voluntary association of equals.  The destruction of
this equality ended both attempts at running Yugoslavia.

>What DO you consider "bending over back to stisfy Croatian Serbs"?

If Croatia were to surrender its sovereignty to Serbia, that would be
"bending backwards".  Croatia's goals were either (1) transform
Yugoslavia into a confederation, or, failing that, (2) full independence.
These goals became necessary after the federation proved incapable
of stopping Milosevic from concentrating power effectively in his
hands, and subverting the constitution designed to prevent precisely
this danger.

>Please correct yourself. Slovenia was not attacked by Serbs but by
>YUGOSLAV army in which the highest command was not only Serbian but
>a mixture of many nationalities.

You are technically correct.  But, the "Yugoslav" army was ideologically
aligned with the Serbian political agenda advanced by Milosevic.  In
this restricted sense, Slovenia, Croatia, and B-H were all attacked
by Serbian forces.  

>Second, how was Slovenia "best" prepared for armed defense against the
>Yugoslav army (which is monstuously armed and powerful)?

Slovenes effectively defeated this army in 10 days.  How come?  Well,
JNA was not ready to escalate, so it had to back down, and that was that.
Slovenes knew exactly what they were doing, they had the tools and weapons
to do it, and we could all see the evidence of this on TV.

>>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.  
>
>Could you also substantiate how did Croatian government want to
>avoid the war by diplomacy? 

Extensive negotiations were conducted even as the war got under way.  Croatia
sought EC mediation, and accepted the Carrington plan (October 1991) which
was also accepted by all other republics except Serbia.  When Serbia
rejected this, the remaining options were full independence or be overrun.
But, even now, Croatia continues to seek a negotiated settlement.

>And also, how did B-H government trusted negotiations the most,
>when they never completed negotiations, never resolved the
>inner conflicts within B-H government, and yet went ahead with
>the secession KNOWING that they are exposing ALL citizens of
>Bosnia and Herzegovina to the hundred times more horrible fate
>than if they stayed within Yugoslavia. That didn't automatically
>mean being compltely subjugated to Milosevic, since they would
>have many many occasions to work for the democracy, against nationalism,
>and for the true interests of all the peoples in B-H.

Not really.  All non-Serbs know that once they capitulate to Milosevic
they will have about as much opportunity to work for democracy and
all that other good stuff as the Kosovo Albanians enjoy under Milosevic's
rule today.

>Yes, I do think that staying within Yugoslavia under those circumstances 
>would have been more honorable, and much more in the interest of the
>people. The PEOPLE of Bosnia and Herzegovina had nothing to lose
>but the Individuals in the government did! 

Not true.  The PEOPLE of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia,
Kosovo, Vojvodina, etc., had plenty to loose:  Kosovo and Vojvodina
had already lost it.  They sought leaders who would protect them from
Milosevic's drive to power.

>Josip, the truth is that the "Serbian question" (like the Jewish
>question) was and is far from resolved. And you know why? Because
>it is in the interest of all of the POWERMONGERS to make this an
>ethnic war so that seemingly defending interests of their own ethnic
>group they have an excuse, a justification for their ruthless
>and criminal powerstruggles. NO ONE government in the countries of
>former Yugoslavia had really worked in the interest of the PEOPLES of
>Yugoslavia, but only in the interest of their personal (or class) holding
>the power or becoming the powerholder.

I'm not going to propose a solution to the "Serbian question".  But, you
cannot ignore the different interests of the peoples of Yugoslavia and
blame whatever you do not like on power-hungry leaders.  There are
genuine, real, palpable differences in national interest at work.  

>I don't believe that waht is really good for one people is not good for
>the other people. I don't believe that the interests of Croatian, Slovenian,
>Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian, Macedonian, Mote-Negrian PEOPLES are in
>any clash. The clashes were just on the level of the RULERS: who has
>power, who has more power, who has the most power. 

You are too much of an idealist.  Peoples do have different and conflicting
interests.  Rulers are sort of like managers, who do strive for personal
power and advancement, but this is not enough to explain why national 
interests clash.

Happy New Year, 

Josip


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.save.the.earth