X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @MIDEUR, @VAL, @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:55:02 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Responses to Mideur-L posts on the Balkans, #3 of 8
Comments: To: mideur-l@ubvm.bitnet, val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet,
          olsenj@stolaf.edu, kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com, klur@maristb.bitnet,
          srdjan%cathy@kri.fer.yu

Date: 30 Dec 1992 11:57:26 -0700
From: POOK@ZENO.MSC.COLORADO.EDU
Subject: RE: More books and films

> Mr. Mayer-Kress writes that the Serbs and the Bosnians hated each
> other for over 50 years.  Try over 500 years. Which is the very point
> of the argument for being cautious in intervening in this mess bu the
> rest of Europe or by the US. It is a quagmire, and planes and guns
> and high technology weapons do not brotherly love teach!  What fuels
> these wars is not the simplicity of gaining teritory, not the
> surgical cleanness of punishment of the guilty, not the fairness of
> the protection of the oppressed, but rather the festering hatred of
> neighbors hating each other over the centuries having lost sight of
> the original events.  It is clan warfare on a large scale, it is
> Hitler running amuck, it is Stalin at his best.  As Peter Probst
> (Office of the Secretary of Defense, US) said "... ethnic customs and
> values are learned at our mothers' knees and are very difficult to
> change."

Well, I had originally said 1500 years the Croats and Serbs have been
in conflict, where it might be more accurately 1000-1200 years, but
the fact remains that these two ethnic groups (and others) have hated
each other long, and quite violently throughout history. I agree with
L. Pook that all the weaponry in the world will not necessarily bring
peace. The place IS a quagmire - somehow the leaders of all sides
have to be brought around to the view that their best interests are
served by negotiation, not use of force. That has not yet happened.

> For the European or world community to be successful in putting an
> end to the atrocities in B-H, they first have to succeed in
> convincing the antagonists to stop for just long enough to listen to
> external reason. Then they have to be convinced that ethnic wars are
> not reasonable.  Then they have to be convinced that they can learn
> to live together.  Some agenda isn't it?  Requiring that these
> antagonists observe existing international laws as Mr. Mayer-Kress
> suggests is the civilized expectation. But can you expect that those
> acting in an uncivilized fashion will suddenly behave civilized?
> Hardly.

I tend to think that Laci has pretty much grasped the difficulty of
the situation from the UN's point of view. Those acting in an
"uncivilized" manner are definitely not likely to "listen to reason."

> There is no reason to argue here the futility of going into B-H
> with force, others have done so before me with greater aplomb than
> I ever could. I just need to add that while the world can put a
> temporary end to the fighting by force, without effecting fundamental
> changes in the mutual behavior of the antagonists that is exactly
> what the result of such a forceful act will be: temporary.  And is
> the EC, the UN, or the US willing to shoulder the responsibility of
> moving into the Balkans with an army of sociologists,
> anthropologists, political scientists, and lawyers for a few years
> and change their behavior towards each other which they "learned at
> their mothers' knees"?

I believe few of those callinmg for intervention understand the
long-term implications of their call to arms. Forces of some kind
would have to stay there twice the length of time Germany was
occupied (45 years) to ensure "peace," probably at a very high cost
of life.

> I already said more than I intended and frankly I do not think I
> offered any solutions.  May be the rest of you have some.

I offered one last summer that I found repugnant, but that was
decried as worse than that when I suggested it. Bomb Belgrade like
was done to Damascus, one of the older of the so-called "civilized"
cities. So, if Damascus is not "sacred" by antiquity or numbers of
people living there, why should Belgrade be? But, I offered the idea
only as an idea, without a firm "plan" to back up the action. Again,
somehow Milosevic has to brought around to the "realpolitik" view
that Balkan and/or European war would destroy his "dream" of a
"Greater Serbia," not bring it about.

(New Year's wishes deleted)

> Laci Pook

VMS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics