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 02:14:57 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Responses to Mideur-L posts on the Balkans, #2 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 04:32:33 -0600
From: Gottfried Mayer-Kress <gmk@PEGASOS.CCSR.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: RE: More books and films

Laci (POOK@ZENO.MSC.COLORADO.EDU) writes:

>> You do have an excellent point in that atrocities are being
>> commited on a daily basis in B-H.  Please do realize that there
>> are atrocities committed on a daily basis everywhere. The
>> Serbs do not have such a monopoly.

> First of all, "atrocities committed on a daily basis everywhere"
> might be correct in some philosophical sense, but I would be happy if
> the level, at which atrocities are committed in B-H reaches that of,
> say, Denmark.

I doubt anyone disagrees with you. I think Laci's point is that there
are many atrocities happening in the world equally grievious to what
is occurring in Bosnia (I think specifically of the imprisonment and
executions of thousands of pro-democracy advocates in China, for
example), though many might say THESE atrocities are especially
barbaric. To the victims, regardless of place, an atrocity is an
atrocity.

> Secondly, did I claim that Serbs have a monopoly? Not even in B-H.
> That is absolutely not my point. In my opinion, it is an anachronism
> to talk about war between some minor ethic groups somewhere in the
> Balkans. In the same way as it is an anachronism to talk about war
> between clans in Somalia. In both cases we have violent anarchy where
> criminal gangs rape and murder innocent civilians.

Partially I agree with the sentiments discussed here. No, no side in
the "Balkan conflict" is innocent of atrocity and barbaric acts.
However, there is no anachonistic behavior occurring in recognizing
causal factors for "why" an event is occurring. So, "factions" in
Somalia, and in Bosnia, which ARE, in part, "criminal gangs who rape
and murder ..." must be considered in analyzing toward a solution.
Ignore clan or ethnic origin, and you ignore "cause," I believe, and
that is NOT "anachronism," but common sense.

>> The violent, purposeful taking of human life is an atrocity in
>> itself regardless of who is committing the crime.

> I agree with that. The difference is what risk does the potential
> murderer face? In a civilized state murder is a crime and murderers
> risk arrest and punishment.

Ah, an assumption that in the Balkan case example there is such a
creature as a "civilized state." Error! No side in the struggle is
acting "civilized," so "sanctions" for murder and rape mean little to
the participants here, in fact these actions appear part of
deliberate policy. Murder is murder, rape is rape, but catching the
perpetrators may have to wait until all the parties are defeated in a
wider war, and these people are then apprehended (hopefully).

> Sure, even capital punishment does not stop fanatic killers. The
> situation in B-H is different: Citizens like you and me are
> encouraged to spend their time shelling residential areas and
> hospitals of cities. Women are kept in rape camps:

>``There was a constant stream of such men coming through the door
>  like at a busy cafe,'' Vasvija says, speaking angrily. ``(The
>  women) were like fruit at a fruit stand or livestock in a pen:
>  Whoever (the Serbs) wanted, they could come in and pick one up.''

>                        From: clarinews@clarinet.com (LAURA PITTER)
>                        Subject: Rape may be deliberate tactic in
>                        Serbs' 'ethnic cleansing' strategy
>                        Date: 27 Dec 92 13:01:27 GMT

I suggest these "citizens" are irregulars, militia, or some kind of
organized armed group. Yes, this is a disgusting, barbaric, inhumane
and documented behavior, acted out by individuals without much in the
way of conscience, but the policy that permits this behavior comes
from men like Karadzic, Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic, and a few
layers of men below them. If these souls condemned this behavior,
much of it would stop, I think. Don't count on it happening soon.

> There is no risk for the men to commit these crimes against
> international humanitarian law, on the contrary: there are reports
> that those who refuse to rape and kill former neighbors are beaten
> and even killed. There is no authority in place to prevent these
> crimes.

That's because "authority" originated the policy. The "crimes" occur
because there is a basic climate of agreement to do them, and as you
point out, those who balk receive what the victims get for being soft
on a policy basically agreed upon from top to bottom.

> Citizens in Spain could claim that by the time they learned about
> Cortez crimes everything was already past and history. Even in the
> Dritte Reich people could claim that they didn't know about the
> concentration camps. They didn't have CNN and MIDEUR-L. Today we do
> have all that information. We know that while we discuss these
> issues, the organized killing goes on.

The basic conclusions here are right, the killing does go on. We also
DO know much more about what is occurring here than in 1943 or the
1550's, but knowledge unto itself does not empower any of us to do
anything about this killing any better than those who KNEW Hitler was
killing Jews and Soviets by the thousands.

>> in culture and the mutual appreciation of each other's behavior
>> we can understand each other, and hopefully some day,
>> appreciate each other enough to solve our mutual problems
>> through negotiations not through atrocities.

I sure agree with this idea in principle, but I state the mechanism
is not yet in place that ensures this is how conflicts WILL be
resolved. I don't expect this "negotiation" mechanism to come quickly
or easily, but this thought should be part of a long-range human
goal.

> Development of culture requires some basic securities, that I know
> that my neighbor will not shoot me as soon as I turn my back, even
> if he hates me. I think that it is our responsibility to think about
> ways that those who would rather use violence in order to achieve
> their goals are strongly discouraged from doing so, even by the use
> of force and violence, if sanctioned by the international community.

This may be correct, but I cannot, in this midwestern city in the USA
that I live in, be assured that my "neighbor" won't shoot me when my
back is turned, how can I expect such to occur anywhere else in the
world? Force begets more force, though I suspect that "judicious use
of force" is justifiable. However, how "strongly discouraged" can we
expect the Serbs to be? Take every gun in the country? (Ha!) I sense
that every last Serb, Croat and Muslim would have to be dead to
"strongly discourage" the use of violence in the Balkans.

>> Frankly, the world has talked about the Balkans long enough.
>> there is nothing much left to talk about there: it's time to
>> act.

Like Gottfried below, I disagree.

> I strongly disagree! The world has acted through the United
> Nations. My opinion is that many of the UN operations were not
> successful in moving closer to putting an end to barbarism in the
> Balkans. I also believe that some of their operations were not in
> support of the stated goals of preventing "these acts of unspeakable
> brutality" (UN-Sec-Council Resolution 798, 12/18/92)

Well, "time to act" is always possible, and I'd rather see talking
than fighting. However, I do not think the Un has succeeded or
"failed." No one has articulated or led towards a realization of a
goal of "preventing these acts of unspeakable brutality" despite the
existence of several NATO contingency plans for military
intervention. Boutros-Gahli wants to continue negotiating, and hold
off on fighting, the Security Council of the UN appears in disarray
on the "Bosnian question."

> I even claim that some UN operations (and the response of the
> European governments) were clearly encouraging the violation of
> international humanitarian law.

I sure would like to see some substantiation of this "claim."

> Therefore I maintain that the world has to continue talking about
> this shameful chapter of European history at the end of the 20th
> century! We have to collectively find solutions that make it too
> risky for any fanatic at any other trouble spot in the world to
> follow the lead of the Balkan war criminals.

I agree completely.

>> What are you doing to stop the fighting?

> I am working on several projects and would be interested to discuss
> each of them with competent experts and interested citizens. Among
> them are:

>     - Develop methods to anticipate conditions for the outbreak
>          of violent crises and means to resolve them using modern
>          mathematical and computational tools.
>        - Study the possibility of a new type of weapons systems that
>          would allow international organizations to enforce
>          international humanitarian law e.g. against snipers.

Laudable projects perhaps, though the first seems a bit esoteric, and
the second a bit limited. I want to make policy originators
accountable, and how I've acted vis-a-vis the Balkan situation is to
write, constantly, often, with as much care and thought as I can
muster, to whomever I think might make a difference, both on and off
the nets, trying to awaken consciences and minds to the events in
Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, among many
places I write about.

>> Laci Pook

> Gottfried Mayer-Kress

VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU