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 01:20:51 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Responses to Mideur-L posts on the Balkans, #1 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

What follows is the first response to one of eight posts written
about the Balkans on Mideur-L 30-31 December, and on 3 January. Five
of the posts were written by the poster below, Gottfried Mayer-Kress,
and one each by Laci Pook, Moss Madden, and James Sheldon. My
responses are not flames at any of these people, not the people they
quote, but an attempt at further exploration of the issues they
raise. These responses are crossposted to POLITICS and Val-L lists
where discussion of these issues are also going on. Thank you for
your patience, VMS

Date: 30 Dec 1992 03:03:22 -0600
From: Gottfried Mayer-Kress <gmk@PEGASOS.CCSR.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: RE: More books and films

Henry Kucera writes:
>> The reluctance of the Europeans to intervene militarily in the
>> former Yugoslavia seems to be based on a general fear of a messy
>> Balkan war.

> The current situation in the Balkans is not only a "messy war," it
> is an ongoing violation of human rights and international
> humanitarian law (See UN Sec Council Res. 771).

I think most observers of the conflict agree that serious human
rights violations have occurred aand are currently happening in
Bosnia-Hercegovina (and probably happened Croatia prior to that). I
think it is also agreed by the very fact that serious proposals of a
war crimes tribunal have been discussed indicates that a large number
of UN members believe violations of international law have happened,
be they "humanitarian" or otherwise. I have posited before in this
forum and others that I believed the basic principles embodied in the
UN Charter were being violated in the Bosnian situation.

>> Germans are aware, I am sure, that Nazi Germany had 30 divisions
>> in Yugoslavia in WW2 and did not accomplish all that much

> Well, what was Hitler-Germany's goal? To prevent violation of
> international humanitarian law? No, Hitler had goals similar to those
> of Milosevic and Seselj: He wanted to create a "Greater Germany",
> they now want to create a "greater Serbia". Milosevic's "Serbs
> everywhere have an inalienable right to live in a single state."
> could be borrowed directly from Hitler's "Heim ins Reich" propaganda.
> Can Hitler's expansionistic fantasies be compared with the
> intervention of the international community for the sake of
> protecting international humanitarian law and the civilian population
> against rape and murder? We know that Serbs and Croats hated each
> other for more than 50 years. Why could they still live a halfway
> civilized life together in the former Yugoslavia?

To respond to your last statement first. As has been noted elsewhere,
a lot more than 50 years of emnity between Croats and Serbs and Serbs
and Moslems are part of the historical record. One poster said "500
years," I suspect that this ethnic conflict goes back 1500 years or
more. I think Hitler's "goal" and Milosevic's "goal" are similar,
just different in scale. The "international community" ignored or
appeased Hitler from the murder of the Austrian Chancellor Engelbert
Dollfuss 25 July, 1934 until he marched into Poland 1 September,
1939. That Milosevic has been placated, pled with, "negotiated with,"
and threatened is no different than that earlier example, save a
shorter span of time has been involved (a little over a year). Allied
intervention occurred, albeit slowly, to stop expansionism and
aggression on Hitler's part; if intervention occurs in Bosnia, it
will be for similar reasons. The big reason Croats, Moslems and Serbs
"live(d) a halfway civilized life together in the former Yugoslavia"
was the same reason disparate ethnic groups in the former USSR lived
side by side - coercive force applied from a central authority
in the hands of a real or quasi-dictator.

> Why do we have to care about issues like "Greeks (a NATO country)
> are sympathizing with the Serbs" and "Romanian volunteers are
> fighting in the Serbian Army, etc". We all know that each side has
> moved back into barbaric anarchy at one point or the other. Therefore
> it does not make sense to me to condemn Serbs or Croats or support
> any of the  parties involved. In my opinion, the only goal that
> should be used as a measuring rod for the international community is
> the compliance with "international humanitarian law".

Using your criteria of "compliance with international humanitarian
law," (though I would just say "international law" myself) I suspect
that Croats and Serbs are being "condemned" precisely because they
are violating law and a basic code of human decency. I think a
geo-political view cannot focus on only one part of a problem, I
tend to an overview perspective myself, so who Greece, Romania,
Russia, Turkey or whomever choose to support could well be relevant
if war breaks out. Many people believe war WILL occur, so considering
these other power's behaviors has to be "cared about."

> It is clear that one can dispute in individual cases

>        - who violated international humanitarian law?
>        - how can this law be enforced?

> This is not different from any criminal law system on a national
> level.

Well, it is not clear "who" HAS violated "international ... law" and
even less clear is how to go about enforcing the UN resolutions with
the concurrance of the international community. As in the Hitlerian
example, the various "great powers" are definitely not in agreement
on a methodology of what to do to "enforce" their will - primarily
BECAUSE of fears of generating a continent-wide war ala World Wars I
and II.

> In some cases, it seems that both questions can be answered in a
> way, that does not involve the danger of international forces being
> drawn into a quagmire: It is the prevention of the use of heavy
> weapons and airplanes against the civilian population. No-fly zones
> can be successfully enforced with fighter planes stationed outside of
> the area of conflict. (We have seen this in Iraq.) Tanks and
> artillery can be spotted and destroyed without the involvement of
> ground troops.Modern technology can be used against snipers who
> terrorize the population. (I am interested in discussing technical
> details with experts.) If UN troops are not capable to fulfil their
> mission of e.g. protecting human rights, then their presence has to
> be questioned. When their presence and security is used as an
> argument AGAINST other means of protecting human rights, then they
> have no excuse of being there.

Well, to start with, I immediately state that I am NOT a military
"expert," but I have some idea what both military and political
ramifications are inherent in the use of force, be it in Bosnia or in
Serbia proper, or elsewhere within the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, I
think making comparisons of "successful enforcement" in Iraq and
potential enforcement in Bosnia or Serbia is to ignore some pretty
primal differences. One is geography, Bosnia and Serbia are both
forested hills and mountains, a much different terrain on which to
"enforce" than that of desert. I think that air attacks on heavy
artillery and/or airplanes and airfields, regardless of where the
planes came from, would raise the intractibility ;evels of the
leaders in Belgrade, not soften them up. "Modern technology" may
sniff out "snipers," heavy weapons and tanks, but a sustained effort
against these forces will be difficult, especially, in my estimation,
these guys will shoot back, unlike the basically docile Iraqis. As I
understand the UN role, it is NOT to "protect human rights," but to
assure that aid gets to folks who need it, period. I agree that that
using their current presence for not doing other things makes for an
impasse, but I also agree with Canadian General McKenzie, one-time
commander of UN forces in former Yugoslavia, in his estimation that
at least 100,000 soldiers would be necessary to ensure "protecting
human rights" in the manner that appears to be suggested by Mr.
Mayer-Kress.

>> relative neglect of the Yugoslav situation may yet lead to worse
>> consequences

> It is worse: It seems to me that the aggressors in this conflict
> have been effectively rewarded by the hesitant international
> community. That will encourage similarly ruthless leaders in other
> conflict areas of the world to follow Milosevic's lead. And these
> conflicts could be of a much greater danger to international
> security. What if an Ukrainian Milosevic emerges who demands more
> than "$1.5 billion from the West for dismantling former Soviet
> nuclear weapons..."?

I agree in part with the above conclusion. I think the basically weak
response of the West and/or the UN to Milosevic's aggression has
"rewarded" the Serbs with 70% of Bosnia and 30-35% of Croatia's
physical land. Whether this "weak response" encourages others appears
less sure - Kravchuk of Ukraine, who doesn't appear to be a Milosevic
though a nationalist of sorts, IS asking for several hundred million
dollars to "dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons." There are few
situations that compare specifically to ex-Yugoslavia, but several of
the "CIS states" face similar situations of "civil war," but none
threaten European war like the Bosnian mess appears likely to do.

>> Henry Kucera

>  --- Gottfried Mayer-Kress

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