From: abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: Calling a spade a spade
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:35:06 GMT

Let me try to edit this posting as nicely as Ana always does.

>Ana (before):
> YES, EVERYONE
>WITHIN THE LEADERSHIPS OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
>IS TO BLAME. How much? What for? Well each one individual and
>official structure, for what they have exactly done. Not more,
>and not less. That would be only just, wouldn't it?

>Andrej (before):
>Leaderships of
>other countries? They are guilty as well? Why don't also blame other
>people with power? Why don't blame other people? Why don't blame also
>you, Ana, and me? Right? Don't you see that such an approach is
>somehow leading to complete anarchy? Is this what we want?

>Ana:
>Not an anarchy. Other world governments who could have had some influence
>and probably did have *SOME* influence, could be also "blamed" accordingly.
>(Depending on What kind of influence they had and how much - Did they
>sell arms to non-official groups or after the embargo on arms? Did they
>actively push for separations before the conflicts are settled peacefully?
>Did they promise support they later didn't give? or did they "just" vote
>for some resolutions in the U.N.? etc)

My point was almost the same as you spelled it out here, though I'd
delete "non-official" above or any adjective which favors the regime.
And also:

>So, I don't think that my previous argument doesn't stand. I said:
>"ACCORDINGLY" - everyone to be blamed exactly for what they have
>done.

That's something I agree with, though all together I don't see a way
how to impose such order in any nowadays human society. I'm not saying
that this is wrong; I'm also not saying that we should not work toward
such goals; no, I'm saying that it's virtually inpossible to
practically implement this reasoning because you get caught into a
never ending story. But this is already a question of some other
nature and a manking avoided it by accepting more "practical solution"
(it's the same story when somebody is killed; is the victim also
responsible for his own dead? Up to certain degree always. But how to
judge this degree? How to come up with it?)

>Ana (before):
>(Take the official press releases from: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and
>Kosovo for years 1980-1987 and after 1987, and tell me whether you can
>or cannot conclude that
>"Croatian and Slovenian *leaders* had used the Kosovo conflict to,
> on one hand, support the most extreme secessionist Albanian leaders, 
>
>and 
>
>on the other hand, to prepare their own populations for hatred, satanization
>and demonization of all Serbs. (analyze the style of writing up the news).
>(here I'll also add, that the Serbian leadership equally used the said
>political events occuring in Kosovo prior to Milosevic and even more
>after he came to power, to equaly satanize and demonize Croatians and
>Slovenians and Albanians).

>Andrej (before):
>Hm, we are going the same way as we did so many times already. First
>question which needs to be answered is whether pointing out on
>problems on Kosovo is act of "hatred and satanization of all Serbs"? I
>don't think so, or you need to blame for this also Helsinki Watch and
>Amnesty International. So was there other writting (in Slovenia
>particularly) which had as a goal what you wrote above? It happened to
>be that in most of eighties I used to live in Ljubljana and hence also
>read and listen (also) Slovene sources (what I sincerely question if
>you did in original language) and I have to say that no such emotions
>were spread around. On the other hand I agree with you, that Serbian
>side was constantly accusing Slovenia of such acts and, especially, of
>not understanding of Serbian position on Kosovo. The next problem, as
>I saw it, was that Serbs were angry because Slovenes were (also)
>listening to Albanian side. The culmination happened when Slovenes
>declined to allow "a rally of truth" in Ljubljana. Serbs said, at that
>moment, that Slovenes do not want to hear their side of story. But
>they completely forgot to mention that Slovenes were willing to give
>them prime time on TV and radio (to their representatives) to explain
>their position. Is this again the "demonization of Serbs"? I'd rather
>turn the question around. What if Serbian authorities have shown their
>people that others (Slovenes) are "preparing their own populations for
>hatred, satanization and demonization of all Serbs"? The rest of
>conclusions are left to the reader.

>Ana (before):
>I agree completely that the Serbian authorities have, as I said above,
>started to spread their propaganda about Slovenes, based half in truth
>and half in lies. But about the "Kosovo case" there are a lot of
>things that I really still don't understand. And I think I don't
>understand them because there are really not a lot of solid and
>truthfull information about how this whole "case" has started and
>developed in post WWII times.

I agree with you that lack of understanding of general and particular
situations is a very big handicap in a discussion and sometimes on
this forum especially. Therefore I'd suggest for reading a book:

AUTHOR: Gow, James.
TITLE: Legitimacy and the military : the Yugoslav crisis /
IMPRINT: London : Pinter Publishers, 1992.
YEAR:     1992
CALL NUMBER: DR1302.G68 1992
ISBN: 1855670313
SUBJECT(S): Civil-military relations - Yugoslavia. * Yugoslavia - Politics and
          government - 1945- * Yugoslavia - Armed Forces - Political activity.
          * Yugoslavia - Ethnic relations.
NOTES: Bibliography: p. [189]-204. * Includes index.
LANGUAGE: eng
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 208 p. ; 24 cm.
ARTS      STACKS  DR1302.G68 1992            In Library      

The book deals with economic/social/political situation in eighties in
Yugoslavia. The book is not only a report of events, but is also
supported by some more theorethical work on social position of groups
and especially on a problem of legitimacy. IMHO it's written quite
objectively.

The book also describes the events on Kosovo and gives the following
numbers which are partial answer on your questions. The book says that
in mid 1960s out of 1000 people 228 Serbs, 258 Montenegrians and only
109 Albanians had their jobs. In 1982 the situation changed, that
Albanians made up only 60% of working force (with more than 75% of
population), while Serbs and Montenegrins represented 33% of working
force (with up to 33% of population). Furthermore, at the same time
Slavs still holded 38% of posts of presidents of Kosovo's
sociopolitical organizations.

I will not answer on Ana's questions, as I don't know exact answers as
well, but let me add a couple answers and comments.

>Ana:
>
>8. Is it true that in their many attempts to secede from Serbia
>officially (even before the police and military regime in Kosovo
>had been instituted by Milisevic) Albanian leaders were strongly encouraged
>by Slovenian and Croatian leaders?

I don't think that this question has an affirmative answer. If we
limit to the time after 1980 the most of secession which was any time
supported from the West was to form the republic, though, up to my
knowledge, no such statement in support was ever publically issued by
official Slovene establishment.

>9. Is it true that Albanians from Kosovo had organized meetings "of
>truth" in Slovenia, protesting against the imposed Serbian government
>regime?

depends how you define term "rally of truth". If you consider any
rally then the answer is yes -- I remember workers from Kosovo (let's
say up to 500 people) protesting in Ljubljana against violation of
human rights in Kosovo. But these were people living and working in
Slovenia. This is the same as yesterday we saw a crowd in Geneve. I
doubt that they came from B&H to protest there. At least not a
majority. But there was never a "rally of truth" as Serbs wanted to
make it when complete trains and busses were expected to bring people
from Serbia to protest in Ljubljana.

>10. Is it true that the same opportunity had been denied to the
>Serbians from Kosovo by the Slovenian authorities?

I wrote about that above. The right was denied for 100.000 rally in
the middle of Ljubljana. And I don't think that a considerable number
of Slovenes (i.e. habitants of Slovenia) thought that this was
against such move. Especially, as I already wrote, if these people
were given an oppurtunity to send a delegation to Ljubljana, where
they would be given a big hall in cultural centre with a full TV and
radio coverage in a prime time to express their opinions, feelings and
problems. They didn't come. Why? It's up to the reader to decide why
they wanted to have a 100.000 rally in the middle of city with 300.000
habitants and they didn't want a full coverage for the whole republic
of 2.000.000 people.

>Regards, and as always I wish you PEACE

Same to you, Ana, and all others,

Andrej