From: medvidov@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Nenad Medvidovid)
Subject: Re: Pluralist Bosnia?
Followup-To: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Reply-To: medvidov@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Nenad Medvidovic)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:57:08 GMT

In article <1jsfgo$h16@agate.berkeley.edu> boyle@kirkuk.berkeley.edu (Joseph Boyle) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.Wy221920.7075@ennews.eas.asu.edu> medvidov@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Nenad Medvidovic) writes:
>>country and many of its people were butchered up in a hurry.  But, unlike the
>>western news media who would have you believe that it was the Serbian oppression
>>of others that fostered the break-up, I claim that it was simply the fact that
>>Slovenes, Croats, and Bosno-Herzegovinians (hopefully a politically-correct
>1
>>term) wanted a land of their own.  Of course, having a bad guy to blame it all
>>on did not hurt at all.
>
>I don't think the crisis was caused just because everyone wanted national
>states at any cost.  I think it was because nationalists moved into the
>post-communist political vacuum, and then because a cycle of fear and 
>retaliation set it.  I think with different leadership, there could easily
>have been a continued Yugoslav union, or a relatively peaceful breakup as
>in the Soviet Union.
>
>For a while it seemed like every JNA officer interviewed by the Western
>press said something like, "Oh, we were such fools to give up living together
>peacefully in one state."
>

	Yeah, but they have been chastized incessantly for being a
"Serb-dominated" officer corps, etc. etc.  The very thing I may be so bitter
about is that, ever since the beginning of the war, being a Yugoslav has carried
extremely negative connotations.  As if trying to preserve one's homeland was a
bad thing.  A personal example: while being interviewed by the school paper
here, at Arizona State, about the war in Yugoslavia, in order to diffuse any
implications of my feelings being ethnically biased (other than being strictly
and exclusively pro-Yugoslavian), I mentioned my multi-ethnic background and,
on top of that, that I served in the Yugoslav army in Ljubljana, Slovenia.  I
also pointed out that, when I served (1987-88), Yugoslavia was obviously a
single country and army service was mandatory (trust me - I could think of a
million different ways of spending a year of my life more enjoyably).  During
the course of the interview, I was asked what I think of the war itself and
simply answered that I personally condemn the war and all the political
implications and aspirations that fuel it and that my heart goes out to the
innocent people (ALL the innocent people) whose families are being killed and
raped and homes burned.  The following day, the sentence read something like
(I am sorry I can't provide the exact quote - the article was so biased and my
comments taken out of context so much that I tried to forget it as soon as I
could): "Although he himself served in the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army, Nenad
is against the attrocities committed by it in Yugoslavia."
	I don't think I need to add anything except that the comment was
completely assinine and yet about 20,000 people (and all my friends) read it. 

>
>>	So, now, as a Bosnian Serb, one has a country whose "government has a
>>stated committment to human rights and pluralism," certainly more than the
>>government in Serbia is supposed to have committed to, but ONE DOES NOT WANT TO 
>>LIVE IN THAT COUNTRY.  I don't by any means excuse ANY of the ways in which
>>that particular displeasure has been demonstrated any more than I accept the
>>ways in which Slovenia, Croatia, and B-H arrived at their independence.  But,
>
>Sure, it's not surprising that the Bosnian Serbs were dissatisfied, and that
>their attempt at preemptive genocide is wrong, and that the declarations of
>independence may not have been a great idea, although it seems pretty obscene
>to equate the two.  But, the question is, what do we do now?  Just sit by?
>

	My intent here was not to equate the two (although, reading it now, it
seems as if it was indeed).  Rather, I was trying to express my disgust
with ALL sides and their actions (also note that, while I did not mention it
since it wasn't relevant in the context, there have been numerous allegations u
of the very idea of "ethnic cleansing" being introduced to the conflict by 
Croatia.  It certainly does not make what the Serbs did - are doing - any less 
horrific, but it adds another perspective to the whole issue.  Also, how about
numerous allegations of Bosnian Muslim forces impaling their victims?  Who is
telling the truth then?  The guy that speaks the most and the loudest? 
I am certainly not sure any more - not that I ever was).  In addition, I was
trying to be a devil's advocate - I am not a Serb from Bosnia so I can't
possibly know what their motivation was, but they sure seem to be motivated
as hell, don't you think?

>
>>I ask you, if you lived in southern Arizona like I do, and the Hispanic majority
>>voted to secceed from the union while claiming its committment to human rights
>>and pluralism, would you stay here and live with it?  If the African-Americans 
>>of Mississippi did the same thing, could you live with it?  It is easy for us 
>
>Mostly I think we should work to avoid getting to that point!  Failing that,
>if America is incompetent enough to fall into suicidal civil war, I would wish
>that there was some outside party able and willing to restore order.  If not,
>I'd probably flee the country if I could find a home somewhere.  If that wasn't
>possible, I'd have to make a difficult choice based on the circumstances.  If
>it was a choice between, say, a black-led local government with a good record
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>versus a white-supremacist central government, I might well go with the former.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>By the way, I'm half white and half Asian, so I'm biased against seeing
>separate ethnic states as an acceptable solution.  I understand that many
>people in ex-Yugoslavia are in the same boat.-
>

	If I understood correctly, the implication here is that the Bosnian
government is the "black-led local gov't" and the Serbian is the "white 
supremacist white gov't."  My folks are living in Serbia right now (we're a
mixed Serbian-Croatian family) and doing OK all things considered (the sanctions
and all).  I am not sure they would ever consider living in the "tolerant"
Bosnia.  I am, on the other hand, absolutely positive that none of us would
safely be able to go (or are willing to) to Croatia.  Besides the fact that
my father has received threats (for being married to a Serb) and has been called
"a Chetnik" and "a known Serbian terrorist" by HTV (Croatian TV) several months
ago for claiming to be a Yugoslav, I myself almost got my butt kicked in the
summer of 1990 (right after Tudjman came to power, but before the war) when
asking for more bread in a restaurant in Split (I asked for "hleb" - a term
used in Montenegro, where I grew up, and Serbia, instead of "kruh" - a Croatian
term).  My intent was not to offend - after all, up until the war, I was proud
of my Croatian heritage every bit as much as I was of my Serbian heritage
(right now - I can't say that I am proud of either). 
	You may draw your own conclusions here.  If it was up to me, I would
personally remove from power Milosevic, Seselj, Izetbegovic, Karadzic, Tudjman,
Boban, etc. and start the whole thing over.  Unfortunately, it can't be done:
	1) it's not up to me, and
	2) we can't bring back the dead.
 
>

	[STUFF DELETED]

>
>Americans may have pitifully little idea of what's going on over there,
>but intervention is still better than letting everyone fight to the death,
>or establish states that depend solely on military force.  That's a recipe
>for a something worse and longer-lasting than the Israeli-Palestinian
>problem.
>

	While I still do not agree with your point, I do respect it for it
is made with honest intentions.

> 
>>and why?  See what I am trying to say?  I lived in Yugoslavia for 20 years -
>>- he (and most other "experts") never did and probably did not know much
>>about it before this war.  Yet, they will have us all believe each and every
>>word they feed us.
>
>What years did you live there?  From what I've read, Milosevic's rise to
>power and everything since was a break from the past and quite unexpected
>by most Yugoslavs.  You say "I don't buy the 'Serb-dominated' argument."
>What does that mean?  I don't think anybody except maybe the most biased
>Croat nationalists thinks the pre-Milosevic Yugoslavia was "Serb-dominated."
>

	I lived there 1968-1989, as well as four months in 1990.  I was there to
witness Milosevic's AND Tudjman's rise to power.  Maybe I am blind, but
I never felt that I lived in a Serb-dominated country.  Not even after
Milosevic came to power.  Granted, he is somewhat of a megalomaniac and I don't
think he's got all his screws in place, but there is so MUCH more to the
breakup of the country than is being said it is at the same time scary and
ticking me off personally.  You say that his rise to power was quite unexpected
by most Yugoslavs.  That's the primary flaw in most people's reasoning and the
largest problem:  THERE WEREN'T MANY YUGOSLAVS IN YUGOSLAVIA.  We were
a miniscule minority in our own country, a non-existant force, representatives
of a politically-correct communist ideal of "brotherhood and unity."
	So, for the purpose of their personal power-trips and political
ambitions, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM (the "post-communist" politicians in the
republics) started building propaganda machineries that would at-first get them
in power and then keep them there.
	Milosevic centered his politics and policies around Kosovo - but
instead of trying to iron out the (now probably irreconcilable) differences
between the local Serbs and Albanians, he magnified them.  While I believe
that he had a legit claim criticizing the 1974 Constitution, which paradoxically
allowed Kosovo and Vojvodina to act within the Federation on their own behalf,
since "Comrade Tito" gave them their autonomy, while Serbia, which was their
encompassing republic, had to allign its policies with the two (i.e. it had
to have their consent first), thus being subjugated to them (a curious little
glitch you'll have to admit), I absolutely abhore the means by which he 
achieved a "united Serbia" and the police state he established in Kosovo.
	On the other hand, while this display of raw power by Milosevic
was admittedly surprising (even frightening) to the non-Serbian people of
Yugoslavia, and while they chose to sympathize with the now-oppressed Albanian
population, those same people had turned a deaf ear to the plights of the
Serbian/Montenegrin population of Kosovo for most of the 1980's.  Milosevic
did not make up the problem in Kosovo - it was there long before him.
	So, this was used by the "leaders" of other republics to formulate
their own agendas.  While the economy sucked, and none of them had any
idea how to turn it around (and probably had no intention either), they
resorted to the rhetoric of the national coming-of-age and all these enemies
they are surrounded by etc.  And then, what you got is what you have today -
a pretty huge mess all-around.
	In retrospect, I am personally not sure what came first - the chicken
or the egg (i.e. whether Milosevic was the by-product of - as he claims -
the decades long anti-Serbian policies, or whether the break-up of the
country and the subsequent wars were the direct outcome of Milosevic and
his policies).  That is the reason I am much more reluctant to blame any
one side more than any other.

	[STUFF DELETED]

>
>		       And several news reports have said that some Bosnian
		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Serbs have been killed by SRBiH military for refusing to rape and kill
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>their Muslim neighbors.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

	Oh, come on!  Does that not sound absolutely preposterous to you?
I am really sorry, but if such reports were not taken seriously by so
many people, they would be laughable.  I guess, after all that has happened
and been misrepresented (or bluntly made up) in the media here, I have become
much more cynical and less accepting of the "news" reports that defy logic.
Such satanization of Serbs (as if they have not already been blamed for
enough) is ridiculous and outright malicious.
	On the other hand, since this whole thing defies logic, maybe it is
just I who is supposed to wake up and smell the coffee.  One never knows.

>
>I don't know why I have to repeat all this.  I'm insulted that you seem to
					                        ^^^^^^^^^^^
>have confused me with some rabid Croatian nationalist who thinks Serbs are
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>evil and should be exterminated.  I'm not.  I just feel strongly that the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>genocide has to be stopped, and that state sovereignty, international
>boundaries, and ethnic divisions are all less important than human rights.

	Not at all!  I am sorry I may have represented myself in such light
since it wasn't my intent.  I may not agree with your opinions, but, not only
do I not confuse you for some rabid Croatian nationalist (as I have been
accused of being one myself by several Serbian "friends" of mine), I respect and
appreciate the fact that you care enough about the whole thing to be informed
about it to the degree that you are.  On the other hand, you seem to have
misunderstood the purpose of my postings.  It definitely was not to defend
the Serbs exclusively, but a personal quest of sorts to point out how many
non-truths and inconsistencies are reported about the conflict.  The problem
at hand is large enough without them.  If you or anyone else don't agree
with my opinions - so be it.  I'd much rather discuss it this way than take
up guns and shoot at each other.

Regards,

Nenad Medvidovic