X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL, @VAL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:57:52 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      "Comments to remarks public and private regarding Bosnia"
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
              shlyakhter@huhepl.harvard.edu, kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com,
              klur@maristb.bitnet

Comments to remarks public and private regarding Bosnia

First, to address the private comment. I do not believe ANY party to
the conflict is "innocent," my probably flippant comment about "let
them prove their innocence" embraced two things at once - all the
participants SAY that they are not the perpetrators of the violence,
it's "the other guys." I do not believe it. As to whether I've "fallen
to the same level of inhumanity" by demanding that would-be claimers
of innocence prove that they are innocent, I'm only going with what I
understand about European jurisprudence, where one is assumed guilty,
and one must prove their innocence.

On the tri-cornered "argument" of Bruce, Paul and "Tyrone" about the
use of force in Bosnia, I think that that all make interesting
points. Bosnia/"Yugoslavia" is NOT Vietnam, it is impossible to make
comparisons like that, so in part, I have to put aside that
comparison - each situation has to be judged on its own merits.
However, I also see our willingness to use force in Iraq, and not in
Europe, puzzling, but also consistent in an odd way. Iraq was
perceived as a threat to world oil, and while other reasons were also
given for the use of force (primarily the invasion of the sovereign
state of Kuwait), it is clear that the flow of import oil and the
possible invasion of Saudi Arabia (in my mind the most spurious part
of the US' policy in relation to this matter) were the
rationalizations for the use of force against Iraq. Also, a perceived
or actual nuclear threat were involved. But, excessive force and
wanton killing of civilians DID occur, and I, for one, feel a
horrible complicity with what I believe was a form of genocide
against the Iraqi people (and NOT Saddam Hussein, as President Bush
often claimed).

But, in "Yugoslavia," and more specifically Bosnia, these are NOT the
considerations in question. What is happening in Bosnia seems to be
"little genocides," isolated killings of tens, hundreds or thousands
unseen by most of the world, more reported and less documented (so
far) than what happened in Iraq. What else is happening IS the
starvation and mass mistreatment of primarily civilian populations.
My concern remains for those people, and then reasonable negotiations
for a settlement of the fighting. I do not believe US intervention
militarily will solve the problem.

However, I HAVE said that a UN force should intervene, if only to
open the Sarajevo airport, and keep Sarajevo from from starving to
death. Turning off water, using electricity as a weapon, these are
criminal acts against civilians. But, I have also said that such a
force should be primarily European, commanded by a European
(preferably a Dutch or French commander), and that the use of force
should be carefully prescribed in its scope. It should NOT be used to
force "lines of demarcation," but defensively to save civilian lives.

I am, again I say, not against Serbs, Croats or Muslims. I believe
that all three HAVE lived in the region, all three believe that they
have a right to exist where they are, and that all three sides have
murky claims about land and population rights. A UN-imposed solution
will not work - a negotiated peace involving ALL the parties is the
only hope for a long-term solution. But, starving and murdered people
are MY basic concern - my comments about war crimes tribunals were to
illustrate my belief that ALL the leaders of the various countries
involved in the conflict have culpability. If I believe that the
Serbs are the primary aggressors, it is does not excuse or ignore
that Croatians and Bosnians are also guilty of murder, illegal
detentions, and genocidal behavior.

As a citizen of the planet, I believe we all have a stake in peace,
be it in "Yugoslavia," Somalia, Mozambique, South Africa, Peru,
Angola, Tibet, China, the "CIS states," Russia or wherever. I think
that force's threat and use has to be "weapon" of last resort, but
that if it MUST be used, that the widest possible involvement makes
it clear that the WORLD wants whatever violence is being acted
against to stop. I do not want the US to decide the fate of Bosnia,
or Macedonia, or Croatia, or all the other countries I just
mentioned. I do not want the UN to decide that either. The peoples in
place have to decide this important question, and NOT at the point of
a gun, or by genocidally wiping out their opponents, or by "ethnic
cleansing" that so hauntingly evokes the images of the brutality the
Nazis inflicted on Europe just fifty short years ago.

So, I say to my friends on Val-L, and POLITICS, that Bosnia will not
be solved by use of force, but that use of force MAY be a tool to get
the killing of innocents stopped, the feeding and care of injured and
starving people restored, and perhaps get genuine negotiations
actually actualized. But, I do not believe that attacking each
other's views on this incredibly complicated issue do any justice to
the situation.

There are elements of rightness, and wrongness, in ALL of our views,
including my own. I do not claim to be right, in either my analysis,
or in my proposed possible solutions, but I DO continue casting about
trying to find solutions, propose motion as opposed to accepting the
status quo, and bring to the fore my concern for the people who are
NOT fighting, but only wish to live out their lives in peace. I often
fail, and my vision is often colored by my continued horror that the
killing continues - but do understand that calling each other "wrong"
in what we propose solves nothing, abd creates still another tier of
animosity over issues that need a unity of action. I do not ask you
to agree with each other, but to tolerate "the other person's point
of view." As they used to say when I was a boy, "walk around in the
other person's shoes for awhile," and THEN see if you feel the same.
Serbs, Croats and Muslims write to me often, and I am constantly
re-thinking my view on the complicated issues that the situation in
Bosnia presents, and I hope that this is something we all try to do.
I am not "locked in" to any solution, I just want to see a solution
effected that saves the lives of the people who just want to live,
and who could care less about the political agendas of the various
leaderships. I do not know if these words help in the current
disagreement on Val-L, nor what our POLITICS readers might think (as
they are primarily silent about Bosnia, save for Liese), but
reasonable dialogue MIGHT produce solutions that might actually be
embraced, acrimonious name-calling will solve nothing. No view is
invalid, no truth is immutable. Please try to keep that in mind. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU