From: borbor@divsun.unige.ch (Boris Borcic)
Subject: Re: Minorities in majority and other silly stuff
Followup-To: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Organization: University of Geneva
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:48:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.200652.15888@enea.se>, 
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) wrote:
> 
> Milan Stojanovic (stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu) writes:
> >Erland Sommarskog (sommar@enea.se) writes:
> >>>Serbs are fighting for
> >>>self-determination, granted to every _nation_ in ex-Yugoslavia,
> >>...
> >>Sure, what about the Albanians? Or they are not a nation? Just
> >>Unter-Menchen? Liar.
> >
> >Hold your donkeys, Erland.  Have you ever heard me to say something bad
> >about Albanians?
> >
> >In ex-Yugoslavia there were six _nations_ and many national minorities.
> >IL allows self-determination for nations, not minorities.
> 
> And the Albanians were not worthy being a "nation" but only a "minority"?
> Funny, they were more numerous than the Slovenes, weren't they? And
> tell me who are in majority Kosovo?
> 
> One excuse I've heard for this bizarre arrangement is that there is
> already an Albanian state, so therefore the Albanians in Yugoslavia 
> could not be a nation. I don't know if Milan Stojanovic agrees with 
> this argument, but if we apply this funny logic, we can only conclude
> that Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina cannot be a nation, only 
> a minority, since there is a Serbian (and Montenegrin) state, and 
> therefore they are not granted self-determination.
> 
> >Constitution of SFR of Yugoslavia allowed for self-determination
> >of nations, not republics or provinces. So Albanians are entitled
> >to the highest degree of autonomy, but not to separate state, according
> >to the international law.
> 
> Please quote relevant parts of international law that makes distinction
> between "nation" and "minorites". Particulary were "minority" is used
> is the same funny sense the SFRY constitution. But, of course, if
> there is such a law, neither have the Serbs in Croatia and B-H any
> right to seceede. If you are minority, it doesn't help if you are
> actually in majority somewhere, minority you are.
> 

I believe this logic indeed played a considerable role. I had real
trouble understanding why so many Serbs living in or out of the territory
of the not-yet-constituted Croatia were so easily convinced that
negociation and playing by the democratic rules in or with the new state
was not an option to get what they wanted, and that an armed fight
was the only possibility/expectation.

The Croatian flag and the backing of the JNA could (and have been)
cited as "reasons". But the 45+ years lapse since the menace of the
offensive feature in the Croatian flag was last actual, as well as the
feeling of power from the backing of the JNA do not match the
impatience and even, considering its timing, hystery of the reaction. 

On another hand, one can concieve that the prospect of finding 
themselves, in (would-be) Croatia, suddenly on the cutting side
of the ill-principled rethoric on the status of minorities that
 had recently gained dominance in Serbia a propos Kosovo 
was a surprise with a nasty sting :-(

This view gains plausibility if one also views (as I do, admittedly
from a distance) as a necessity at the time the electoral impact 
of a Tudjman-equivalent who would provide the croatian public
with an "personalised" approximation of the nationalistic language
it had been given to hear coming from Belgrade for a couple
years.
 
What a waste, -- but is there a lesson ?

Boris Borcic
borbor@divsun.unige.ch



PS: this is not to mean I endorse the shape of the croatian
government as it turns out *now*. But war, it seems to me,
 started before it *did* anything really significant, and war
favors banditry anywhere.