From: jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Who is at fault for the Serbia-Bosnia War?
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:43:31 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Originator: jd@latcs2.lat.oz.au


	If you think this is propaganda skip this message now!

	Has anyone out there thought seriously about who the blame for
all this mess should be placed on? Apart from the obvious three factions
of Serbs and Bosnians and Croars?

	I put it to you that the EEC first of all, followed by the USA
secondly are very much responsible! 

	These two entities are the defacto leaders of the world at the 
momment and they set the norm, that is what they say goes. The rest of
the world seems to accept their word as the bibles own truth. So when
they pontificate most believe them without reservation. Particularly
people who tend to take everything they see and hear on TV as true and
self-evident. However I do not accept everything I am told if logic does
not support the argument, so here is my assesment of the situation. 

	The EEC had no right to recognise some arbitrary nation "bosnia"
simply because it was a specific internal region of the colapsing "yugoslavia",
if from the begining the EEC had recoginsed the division of this region so
that "serbs could be part of Serbia", "croats part of Croatia" and the "muslims
independent and part of a smaller but homogeneous Bosnia", then this war
could have firstly have been avoided, secondly the situation now where Serbia
will get more territory than she deserves would not occur, thirdly the chance
for a long term peace would have been much higher.

	But No, If the EEC had proposed some such a fair solution that would
disrupt the 'status quo' because all sorts of People around the world would
demand such fair solutions, espesialy those situations such as Ireland,
Cyprus, the Basks (spain), internal Italian problems (north vs. south),
Scotland (independent?), the Kurds (a nation with no state!), etc, etc, etc.
	Oh god! How many cans of worms would this open up?

One may say that in many places around the world different nationalities live
harmoniously in the same state (country), so why can't this prove the case in
Bosnia? Because there is no good will thats why, and nothing is forcing them
anymore like communism did. 
So what should happen? Well what do people do when they can't live together, 
they get a divorce thats what. Consequently given the lack of good faith 
a division, taking into acount the percentages of the populations 
(so as to divide fairly), is the best solution.

	No doubt such thinking world wide at this time would encourage
fragmentation of many nations which face internal problem due to the
increase of "nationalism". And it can not be disputed that larger state
prosper as a rule more than smaller ones do. But forcing this union is
not the way to go. If some peoples cannot see the advantage of being part 
of a greater whole, then they should be permitted to seek independence,
in this case this holds for the 'serbs' in Bosnia as much as the 'bosnians'
in ex-Yugoslavia. 

	On an aside, evidence that uniting is good is the EEC 
itself, where the partners expect to reap the rewards of economic cooperation
that will result from the Union, but it is self-evident that all partners
must be willing. And for the EEC to arogantly impose a Bosnian state in 
the form it use to be when ex-Yugoslavia was alive is ludicrous.
	Consider why the EEC while itself in the process of uniting into 
a powerful federation, immediately recognised the independence of all the
ex-Soviet states, this was done because divided they would be weaker, there
is the old saying after all "divide and conquer".

	As it is the status quo is good for the EEC, so who cares for the
problems of the rest of the world, as long as the dollars keep coming in,
there is nothing to worry about! 

	It is sad to see the EEC in general supporting any "defacto" situation
just because it is convinient and not try to find working long term solutions.
We are used to the UN doing that! 

	If you think I am cynic you are wrong this how things are, and just
because we live in the western world does not mean we should support every
thing the "west" does.

The big problem would be to divide areas where population was intermixed.
But if this was an easy problem we wouldn't expect of our leaders to solve
it, anyone could do it. 
	Shifting populations may have been necessary to keep the resulting
states as continous, united and integrated areas. This may seem difficult
and even cruel, but if done peacefully and by mutual conscent would be 
acceptable, since a presume people would prefer to live with there own,
the solution would be once and for all. 
	Also consider that these people lived in a communist state till
now and so I argue that moving house would not be so bad, (not as bad as
becoming a refugee which is the case now!), as it would involve exchanging
one property for an other similar (in a capitalist system this wouldn't
work since we are not all equal in terms of wealth, while in communist system
with the exception of the party faithfulls -nobody cares for them anyway- 
all others where supposed to be equal, which implies similar levels of
private wealth for all) in a new area of ones own culture would have been
acceptable.

	As the EEC was mistaken to act as it did, that is why it is reluctant
to employ military force against Serbia, since the EEC likes the solution 
given to this situation, although posibbly not the stupidly inefective way
the serbs are going about it, lets face it they should have obtained half of
"bosnia" by now, kick out all muslims, taken in all serbs and made Peace.
That they have not done so is testament to their incompetence and propably
their greed for more than is necessary for them to conquer.

	The strategy employed however is not new, it has been used before,
and the outcome is easy to 'see'. So wouldn't a peacefull division have been
better? 
	And besides the disassembly of ex-Yugoslavia could have meant a new
beginning, so why not go for the 'obvious' solutions of splitting up 'bosnia'
in a peaceful way and as part of the recognision conditions, instead of forcing
the war. 
	Now because of the inevitable inertia of the status quo if the 
'defacto' solution is an unfair one, is the events so far point to for the 
Bosnians, then there will be a long and uneasy peace to come, which is not
a good solution to any "logical man's thinking". 
	Can anyone "see" how since things have gone done this path, how the
EEC could save the situation?

	If anyone disagrees lets hear his resoning. I am willing to reconsider
my verdict.
				The simple solution is almost always the best!
									jd.