From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna,soc.culture.croatia
Subject: Re: Good News from U.S.
Date: 21 Jan 1993 17:37:13 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <1993Jan21.190219.26290@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>
>2) You made my point exactly about Hitler and world reaction: the world
>   said it was okay for him to exterminate Jews, because it was an "internal
>   problem", at least until he invaded enough other countries.
>
You entirely miss my point that what Serbians have done in B-H does not
compare in any way with what Germans did in WWII.  No extermination camps
have ever been found, Serbian military forces are not invading countries
around them, in fact Serbs fighting in B-H are almost all from B-H itself 
who, overnight, were stripped of their common former state (Yugoslavia)
mostly against their will.  

Now, here is where idealism and practicality clash: if you want to intervene
in countries which have human rights problems, but which do not attack
other countries, there is a terribly long list of countries to intervene
in.  The U.N. Secretary General himself identified at least TEN countries
which have more severe internal problems with their populations than exist
in B-H.  Countries make decisions based on the "rules" that the international
community makes.  The world will not be a more orderly place unless these
"rules" are applied fairly to all countries.  The Soviet Union and more
recently Czechoslovakia demonstrated how the dissolution of a country can
be negotiated rather peacefully.  They should be rewarded.  The territories
of ex-Yugoslavia demonstrated quite the opposite so far.  None of them
negotiated sincerely, and they should not be rewarded, i.e., Slovenia,
Croatia, and B-H should not have been recognized.  

The final point here that I will make is that if you advocate intervention
into another country, then other countries have the right to advocate
intervention in your country according to the international "rules" that 
are agreed upon.  This is why China continually abstains from security
council votes; they follow the "golden rule" in international relations 
because they don't want other countries getting involved in their internal
affairs.  BTW, China was like that long before Mao.  Until the U.N. 
resolves to apply internal intervention policies across the board, internal
and international matters should be handled differently.  In ex-Yugoslavia,
even international principles have been violated by the international 
community:  Why were Slovenia, Croatia, and B-H allowed to change the
external (international) borders of ex-Yugoslavia? 
>
>"Blatant violation of international law"?  Come on.
>
Yes, blatant.  Secessions and border changes are supposed to be negotiated.
Secessions which take compact ethnic regions out of a country against the
will of those people is against international doctrine.  The secessions of
Croatia and B-H took over 2 million Serbs out of their country (Yugoslavia)
against their will.  These Serbs were not spread out homogeneously throughout
Croatia and B-H; they lived primarily in certain regions which were both
historically and presently settled by them.  They represented 32% of the
population of B-H at the start of the war; according to Vance and Owen,
Serbs were majority on 60% of the territory of B-H.  Forcing them overnight
to be separated from Yugoslavia against their will was most certainly
a violation of international law.

>1) There are many Serbia apologists on this forum who state that one of
>   the main precipitators of the war is the history of the region.
>2) Basing present actions on wars and conflicts that occurred 4-500 years
>   ago is ridiculous, and one of the reasons this conflict will not end
>   easily.  Remember, there were other people in the Beograd region before
>   the Serbs arrived; shouldn't we thus kick the Serbs out?
>
I disagree.  Many Serbs bring up history because it affects the way people
think and act in the present.  But the history is NOT the cause of the war
and I have rarely heard Serbs claim that history is the cause of the war.
The war is a result of the events that happened in the last decade, and
mainly the last two years.  The history is an overlay that cannot be 
ignored in evaluating the present conflict, however.  

The war is a consequence of the RECENT actions of Slovenia, Croatia, and
B-H, not history.  Events such as ethnic cleansing of Serb villages in
Croatia in the months prior to the start of this war.  Events such as
secessions which forced people out of their own countries against their
will without providing them with guarantees of minority rights.  Events
such as secessions without settlements about borders or partition of the
Yugoslav debt.  Events such as Croatian adoption of national symbols used
by the Ustashe in WWII Nazi puppet State of Croatia (like Germany reviving
the Swastika).  Laws which limited property rights, voting rights, 
citizenship rights, worker rights, etc. of minorities in Croatia at the
time of their secession.  Etc., etc., etc.

Now, take that situation which is only the events of the last two years,
and superimpose the history of WWII and before.  It is not the memory of
the past which drives Serbs, it is the experience of the present.  Serbs,
like Jews, have no intention of ever allowing the events of WWII to
happen to them again; a larger percentage of the Serbian population
was exterminated than was the Jewish population.  Despite the history, 
B-H was relatively peaceful for forty years because the situation there
was unlike it had been in WWII.  In the past two years, the war came
because of concrete anti-Serb actions in Slo/Cro/B-H; Serbs there did
not have to guess what their lives would be like after secession--they
were living through it (actually, some of them didn't live through it,
they were slaughtered) when they were fired only because they were Serbian,
when they were harassed in the middle of the night by thugs who wanted them
out of town by morning, when they were prevented from selling their
property if they decide to leave instead of fight, when their neighbors
disappeared without a trace, when signs were posted ordering immediate
evacuation of entire villages.  This is all in the RECENT past, and that
is why there is war.  The past serves to make all the players more
virulent, to be sure, but the fight is about the present, make no mistake.
 
>If you live in the past, you cannot address the future.
>
Serbs are very much living in the present, and dying as well.

>But then again, we are talking about a current war in the Balkans.  There
>is no war in the US at this time.
>
Well, I think that's a matter of semantics.  The number of casualties of 
armed conflict in the U.S. more closely resembles war than peace, I would
argue.  Most cities in the U.S. are in a state of war; they all have their
very own sniper's alleys.  Perhaps the world should condemn the U.S. more
vigorously for its human rights violations of minorities, and the poor.
After all, more people in the U.S. die of violence every year than all the
casualties of the Yugoslav civil war in total.  Perhaps armed intervention is
the only thing that will gain U.S. compliance with U.N. resolutions?  
>
>Interesting last comment, given that you have given many of your own reasons
>why Serbians should be at war, and will continue to be at war just so that
>they won't have to be under a government that will *remind* them of WWII.
>
I have not given any reason for why Serbs should be at war.  It is easy
for me, here in the U.S., to say that I am against war.  I would like to
think that I would not have chosen war even if I lived there.  Some were
not given that choice however, and others were unwilling to make that 
choice.  Just because I am against war, however, does not mean that I am
unable to understand what the war is about.  If most of your family had
been slaughtered in WWII Croatia (which included B-H), as is true for
many Serbs, you would not want to be *reminded* about WWII through
passage of racist laws, ethnic cleansing, murders, being fired from your
job, etc. today in the country of your birth and lifelong residence.  

>Also, I'm not choosing to side with one against the other, as far as
>self-determination and land ownership go.  I choose to condemn whichever
>side(s) are committing cold-blooded murder and atrocities.  Both sides
>are guilty of these, but the Serbs are certainly WAY out in front.  Just
>read the UN reports.
>
And who was in front just before the war?  Just before the secessions?
Who made the first land grabs in the current war?  Who committed the
first ethnic cleansings?  Who is violating the no-fly zone more often?
Which country's troops are invading B-H?

All of this is as pointless as blaming ancient history for the war. 
The point is to reach a settlement regarding the just claims of all the
sides.  And all of the sides do have just claims.  All of the sides also
have outrageous claims, unscrupulous scoundrels, and bloodthirsty criminals.
These people won't be any help in creating a lasting peace, but they are
the ones who will profit by escalating the war.  I would urge you not to
play into their hands.  

-Nick

Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia