From: abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: Good News from U.S.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:12:18 GMT

I'd like to discuss some of statements in the original posting. In
fact, I'd put some facts in other, also completely valid, perspective,
though it would be interesting to discuss perhaps the difference of
perspectives and not one of the other. So:

In article <1jmpl0INNc5f@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>
>Second, the world didn't act
>against Hitler because of the holocaust; it acted because of Hitler's
>invasions.

That was very well said, and is not part of my discussion, but I like
this statement and IMO it's very correct.

>Third, 1.4 million Serbs in Bosnia lived in Bosnia, owned and
>farmed land in Bosnia, etc. before the current war began; they are not
>invading anybody.

That's true and I think that everybody agrees on that. Though more
problems come with:

>The illegal secessions of ex-Yugoslav republics does
>not change the fact that over 2 million Serbs in those republics were
>taken out of their country (Yugoslavia) against their will overnight when
>the secessions were declared and recognized by the international community
>in blatant violation of international law.

In this statement are a couple of terms which are very discutable. for
beginning, the point of ``taken out of their country'' is not only
valid for Serbs, but also for all other nationalities, though the
point about ``their will'' needs to be discussed a bit. I agree, that
it was against the will, but the question is if it would stay in
ex-YU, wouldn't that be against somebody elses will? Now, who is more
(or less) right here? Why should 60+% of people not be allowed to
fulfill their will because of 40-% people?

The last thing in a quoted paragraph talks about ``violation of
international law''. I have to admit that I don't see where was this
law violated, or, better, where is any law which does not allow
dissolving of certain country? And, further, everything was approved
by majority of MPs in parliament (I'm aware that Serbian MPs boycotted
the voting).

beside this we could read:

>Asking Serbs
>to live in an independent Croatia or an independent Bosnia-Hercegovina is
>analogous to asking millions of Jews to live in Germany.  In fact, Saudi
>Arabia, after WWII, suggested that Israel be carved out of Germany instead
>of Palestine.  This would have allowed the European Jews to remain where
>they had long been without having to live IN Germany.  This is what the 
>Serbs of Croatia and B-H want also; they don't want to move off land which
>has been theirs for centuries, they don't want to live under regimes which
>by their symbols and actions remind them of WWII atrocities committed against
>them, and if Croatians and Muslims are entitled to their self-determination,
>then the Serbs want self-determination as well.  Serbs are fighting for the
>portions of Croatia and B-H on which they have lived continuously for
>centuries.

I think that this is not the major problem where the international
community is opposing to Serbs. I'm even convinced that international
community would help Serbs in such a fight. The real problem are those
poor people who were driven out of their homes and _the_way_ as Serbs
are exercising their will. Hence, as long this would be the way to
achieve Serbs demands there will be no acknowledgement for Serbian
actions. Agree?

>Of course, Bosnian Muslims and
>Bosnian Croatians also have legitimate claims and entitlements.  That is
>why there is a war.  The key to ending the war is recognizing all of these
>peoples' rights, not just some of them.  If you choose to side with only
>some of them to deny the legitimate and just demands of another, you are
>a catalyst for more war.  It's your choice: work for lasting peace or 
>lasting war.  I choose peace.  What about you?

I think that here is center of the problem. Namely, as I said above
already, nobody is denying Serbs any right. All what international
community is saying to Serbs is: ``You have (first) all rights, you
have (second) no more rights then the others, and (third and most
important) the way as you are demanding your rights is not the way as
reasonable human beings are doing and we can not aprove that.'' Did
anybody trieds to think this way about the current behaviour of
international community?

All the best,

Andrej