From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: FCNL: Yugoslavia Conflict
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:12:33 GMT

/** fcnl.updates: 24.0 **/
** Topic: G-235FOR Yugoslavia, conflict **
** Written  3:16 pm  Aug 18, 1992 by fcnl in cdp:fcnl.updates **
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATIION       
Phone: 202/547-6000
245 Second Street, NE                       
FAX:   202/547-6019
Washington, D.C.  20002-5795
                     ------------
August 11, 1992

                CONFLICT IN YUGOSLAVIA

From 1945 until 1989, the multinational state Yugoslavia maintained its
status as an independent Communist nation.  Ruled by Marshal Tito
until 1980, Yugoslavia adopted a policy of non-alignment, establishing
relations with both the East and the West, while controlled by neither. 
However, as Soviet power diminished and communism lost its grip on
Eastern Europe in 1989, Yugoslavia seemed to come apart at the
seams.  Today the world watches as the republics and ethnicities that
make up the former Yugoslavia violently struggle to establish a new
geopolitical order in their lands.  Less visible, but no less real, people
in each republic and ethnic community work at great risk to achieve
change through tolerance and peaceful methods. 

                      BACKGROUND

DIVIDING FORCES:

NATIONS AND ETHNICITIES.  Yugoslavia was formed after World
War I at the Paris Peace Conference in 1918.  Originally called the
Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, in 1929 the region was
renamed Yugoslavia "Land of the South Slavs."   Six republics make
up Yugoslavia:  Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia,
Macedonia, and Montenegro. In turn, six major ethnicities make up
these republics:  Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Montenegrin, Albanian,
and Muslim. 

REGIONAL AND RELIGIOUS.  In addition to ethnic and national
divisions, Yugoslavia is  divided north and south.  Northern
Yugoslavia,  which includes Slovenia and Croatia, became
industrialized in 1918 and is dominated by Roman Catholicism. 
Southern Yugoslavia, which includes Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Montenegro, and Macedonia, retained an agrarian-based economy until
later in this century.  Two religions dominate the southern region,
Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

POLITICAL.  Yugoslavia has long been torn between those who favor
a centrally controlled federation of states and those who advocate a
system which allows for greater national autonomy among the states. 
Serbia has led the recent struggle for central control and has sought
Serbian control of such a government. The northern nations,
experiencing greater economic success, prefer autonomy.  

A Serbian monarchy ruled over Yugoslavia in 1941 when Nazi forces
invaded.  Many other Yugoslavians, particularly Croatians and
Albanians who resented Serbian control, joined with the fascist ranks to
carry out horrific anti-Serb policies.  Hundreds of thousands of Serbs
were killed.  These policies have never been forgotten nor forgiven. 
Two anti-Nazi groups arose in Yugoslavia:  the royalist (Serbian)
Chetniks, and the Communist Partisans, led by Tito, a Croatian.  

Following Tito's rise to power in 1941, the national, ethnic, and
regional power struggles were kept under control, although never
entirely absent and by no means resolved.  After Tito's death in 1980,
Yugoslavia barely held together.  Three factors maintained what
cohesion there was:  (1) the threat of a Soviet take-over, (2) the
strength of the Communist party, and (3) the power of the army. 
These provided the adhesive holding the multinational state together. 
However, in 1989 Soviet power began to diminish and the Soviet
Union disintegrated after the August 1991 coup attempt.  The
Communist party, having lost its strength in the rest of Eastern Europe,
lost its hold in Yugoslavia.  Yugoslavia began to unravel.


SINCE 1989: ASSERTIONS OF INDEPENDENCE     

Just as Eastern European nations broke from Soviet control, the
republics of Yugoslavia have begun to claim independence.  

SLOVENIA.  Slovenia was the first to declare independence (June 25,
1991).  The Yugoslav People's Army (YPA), dominated by Serbs,
intervened in an attempt to block Slovenian independence.  On July 7,
with European Community (EC) mediation, a cease-fire was established
between the YPA and Slovenian forces.  Slovenian independence was
suspended for three months; the EC and the United States have since
recognized Slovenia as an independent state.

CROATIA.  After the May 1990 elections in Croatia and the election
of Franjo Tudjman as President, Croatia began to seek its
independence.  This proved much more difficult than Slovenia's quest,
because approximately 12% of the Croatian population are Serbs, many
of whom oppose Croatian independence.  Since the June 1991 Croatian
declaration of independence, Croatia and Serbia have engaged in
warfare against one another.  In January 1992, Croatia and Serbia
supported the deployment of UN Peacekeeping forces on Croatian soil. 
Despite UN presence, warfare continues as Croatian forces attempt to
regain regions now under Serbian control.

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO.  In Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, a
communist buoying himself on Serbian nationalism, was elected
President in 1990.  Initially, Milosevic championed the Serbian
nationalists' desire for the Yugoslavian federation to continue.  This is
based in the hope for all Serbs to live within one border.  When
independence was declared by some states and recognized
internationally, Milosevic revised this political goal.  Now the objective
has been narrowed to seek the protection of Serbs' rights in other
former states of Yugoslavia.

In October 1991, Serbia and Montenegro took over the federal
institutions abandoned by the newly independent nations.  In April
1992, Serbia and Montenegro formed the New Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.  The Federal Republic has international recognition, and,
in June 1992, Dobrica Cosis was named President and Milan Panic,
Prime Minister.

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA.  The most current tragedy in Yugoslavia
has erupted in Bosnia-Herzegovina, particularly in the Bosnian city of
Sarajevo.  This republic is largely made up of Croatians, Serbians, and
Muslims.  The President of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Alija Izerbegovic,
asked for EC recognition of the republic as an independent nation in
December 1991. After a Bosnia-Herzegovina vote on independence
(99.4% approved, minus Serbian vote because of a Serb boycott),
Europe and the U.S. recognized Bosnia-Herzegovina independence.

Serbian forces predicted the outbreak of civil war if Bosnia-
Herzegovina declared independence.  Since April 1992, the world has
seen just that unfold.  Serbian forces have gained control over several
Bosnian cities and have forced out, detained, wounded, or killed much
of the non-Serbian residents.  Similarly, outside Croatian forces have
supported internal pro-Croatia efforts.  The Serbian forces exercise
predominating military power at this time.  While media reports tell of
the atrocities committed by Serbian forces, all the people of Bosnia-
Herzegovina continue to suffer tremendously.

                INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE:
                WHO WILL HELP AND HOW?

UNITED NATIONS

A UN-imposed arms embargo against Yugoslavia (Resolution 713) went
into effect in September 1991.  The following February, the Security
Council approved a 14,000-member peacekeeping force for Yugoslavia. 
These forces were deployed in Croatia and Bosnia by May 1992, with
peacekeeping headquarters in Sarajevo.    

Due to continuing Serbian-led violence, the Security Council approved
sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro in May 1992.  Medicine and
humanitarian relief are exempt from the embargo.  

In June, concerned with the human suffering in Bosnia, UN negotiators
reopened the Sarajevo airport for the delivery of humanitarian aid. 
One thousand additional peacekeepers were deployed at the airport. 
The UN relief efforts have consistently met with sniper fire as
peacekeeping forces attempt to move the aid into the city.  

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

The European Community (EC) has played a mediator role in the
Yugoslavian crisis.  In September 1991, the EC held a conference on
Yugoslavia at The Hague -- little resulted as fighting continued.  The
EC maintained monitors in Bosnia-Herzegovina until members of their
monitoring team came under fire and monitors were removed.  They
have supported the sanctions against Serbia, and the use of UN military
force for the delivery of humanitarian aid.  

UNITED STATES

The Administration:  Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
United States perceived great Cold War interests at stake in
Yugoslavian affairs because of its independence from the Soviet Union. 
However, when the Soviet Union and its reign over Eastern Europe
diminished, so did U.S. interest in the Yugoslavia region.  The lack of
perceived "U.S. interests" in Yugoslavia has led to cautious
consideration by the Administration of how the U.S. should respond to
the crisis.

The Administration has supported EC and UN peace efforts.  In
December 1991, the U.S. imposed economic sanctions -- excepting
food and medicine -- against the New Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro).  As stated earlier, the U.S. has recognized
the independence of several former Yugoslavian republics.  The U.S.
has assisted in the delivery of humanitarian aid to these republics, and,
most recently, in the airlifts to Sarajevo.  

President Bush has said, in response to calls for U.S. involvement,
"The United States is not going to inject itself into every single crisis,
no matter how heart-rending, around the world" (July 2, 1992). U.S.
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney stated that the U.S. role in Yugoslavia
would be "...limited to naval and air support...
" (June 30, 1992).  U.S. air or naval support would be used as part of
a multilateral intervention in Yugoslavia.  

Congress:  Members of Congress have also responded to events in
Yugoslavia.  In the fall of 1991, legislation was introduced in the
House of Representatives (H.R. 3518) calling for multilateral sanctions
against Yugoslavia, prohibiting U.S. aid for Serbia and Montenegro,
and calling for a U.S. trade embargo against Serbia and Montenegro. 
Similar legislation passed the Senate in May 1992 (S. 2743).  In the
House, legislation has been introduced revoking the Most Favored
Nation (MFN) trade status for Serbia and Montenegro (H.R. 5258).  
Recently, in June 1992, the Senate passed a resolution (S. Res. 308),
calling on the President to make the UN Security Council "plan and
budget for such intervention as may be necessary" in Yugoslavia.  

On August 11, 1992, both the Senate and House of Representatives
passed non-binding resolutions on Yugoslavia.  These resolutions call
on President Bush to seek an emergency UN Security Council
resolution to authorize "all necessary means," including military force,
to protect humanitarian relief missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and to
ensure the access of UN and International Red Cross personnel to
refugee and prisoner of war camps; to consider lifting the UN arms
embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina to permit a flow of arms to Bosnians
to fight the Serbs; and to consider establishment of a war crimes
tribunal to investigate crimes against humanity allegedly committed by
belligerents in the war. 

                        SUMMARY

The Yugoslavia tragedy poses difficult questions for a global
community adjusting to global politics minus the Cold War.  The
conflicts that have boiled forth in Yugoslavia are tensions that are deep
rooted in Yugoslavian history.  It will take lengthy negotiations among
all parties of the former Yugoslavia to resolve these conflicts.

World leaders struggle to determine the next course of action in a
nation where peacekeepers cannot deliver boxes of food and medicine
to the peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It is a country so riddled with
warfare that Pentagon and other military experts warn against external
military intervention by the international community.   Additional
armed conflict would probably escalate tensions and human suffering. 
In the event of military intervention, it is not clear which side(s)
international forces might assist or combat.  In Yugoslavia, crimes
against humanity are probably being carried out on all sides of the
battle lines.  None excuses the other.  Each republic and ethnic or
minority group is struggling for its right to self-determination, and each
should be supported in this right, however, not through military means. 


There are groups, organizations, and individuals within Yugoslavia who
are rejecting warfare and working to ease the sufferings of people. 
These courageous communities should be supported.  Intensive
international diplomatic efforts to establish negotiations between all the
Yugoslavian factions should continue, despite the setbacks.   

FRIENDS COMMITTEE on NATIONAL LEGISLATION
RECOMMENDATIONS

Armed conflicts ravage Yugoslavia.  Masses of civilians face hunger,
malnutrition, and starvation, as well as violent death.  Children and aging
people are the most vulnerable.   The senseless killing and suffering
follow the terrible logic of ethnic bigotry, nationalist pride, religious
intolerance, and avenging of historical injustices.  In these complex
situations, good and evil abide on all sides of the conflict.  We cannot sort
the parties to the conflict into victims and executioners, into the good and
the evil.  Taking sides will not make things better.

At the same time, evil and brutal acts of violence and tragic human
consequences are real.  We cannot ignore them; we should not stand
aside.  How to engage the conflict in a timely and helpful way perplexes
us all, but especially governments and international authorities.  Good
intentions will not be sufficient.  Quick action can aid or do additional
harm.  The moral imperative to do something is clear.  What to do that
will be moral and effective is not clear.  FCNL has no ready solutions at
hand, and we are humbled by the challenge these conflicts present those
in authority.

We offer these queries for policy makers considering what actions to take
in Yugoslavia:

o    Enemy Images:  Does the problem definition on which you base
     your policy action avoid enemy images and seek justice and
     protection of civilians on all sides of the conflict?  

o    De-escalate the conflict:  Does your action create conditions to de-
     escalate the armed conflict?

o    Taking Sides:  Can the UN or any particular nation be a
     peacemaker if it becomes a party to the military conflict?  Is the
     action to be taken consistent with the role of peacemaker?

o    Conflict Resolution:  Does your plan of action raise up and use
     intensive diplomatic and political contact with all parties to the
     conflict?  Is dialogue kept alive?

o    Humanitarian Aid:  Have humanitarian actions been kept separate
     from political and military agendas?  Have humanitarian needs
     been responded to no matter what side the civilians are on?

o    Options of Last Resort:  Military action in Yugoslavia may be seen
     by many people as necessary, but can this option of last resort
     deliver on the promise of saving civilians from the violence and
     ending the conflict?

o    Profits of War:  Armed conflict, especially with heavy weapons,
     is expensive and requires resupply of munitions and parts.  Is your
     action helping to stop the flow of heavy weapons and munitions? 
     Have war profiteers been curbed?

o    Seeking Wisdom:  Is the action guided by political expediency or
     by truth?  





ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

The American Friends Service Committee (1501 Cherry Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19102) has an excellent talking points memo, June 30,
1992, and an article by John Feffer, "The Unraveling of Yugoslavia," July
1991. 
                      


** End of text from cdp:fcnl.updates **
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive