From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: "democratic" Estonia
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:34:20 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



>and their compatibility. And climate. And spots on Sun.
>And the result may be anywhere between two extremes:
>	XX and YY may live peacefully (comparatively speaking)
	
Stangely enough spots on the sun correlate with electromagnetic
disturbances in the solar system. And the planetary alignments
seem to correlate with spots on the sun. Furthermore, the so
called 'rising sign' of astrology seems to correlate with eminence
in specific fields. Research was done by respectable statisticians
at the University of Sorbonne. But I digress...

But the real point is as below. And thanks for thinking that
posters in Usenet not born in the USSR are capable of intelligence
unlike some from there who still seem to prefer a hegemonic
way of thinking about events (only theirs counts of course :-)..

>and form a new nation or super-ethnos;
>	XX and YY may fight until complete destruction of one of the nations.
>History gives you examples of every kind (Latin America; Rome vs. Hunns).
>And there is no general receipt - considering number of variables
>involved.

Great, now we have examples from history. Now we have another problem.
Since it is either an outright custom (or a hidden assumption)
held by certain members of the USENET community that either certain
groups or certain periods were more barbaric or less civilized 
than others, and I would assume that no one would now want to 
live like people did 500-1500 years ago or still carry the same morality,
we should want to do things differently.

(Please note that I am in agreement with most of your comments.)

If things never change, then what is development and civilization ?
The same law of the jungle rules. If we do want to change things,
then on what principles ? 

We don't want to behave like the HUns, I hope :-).. So what
is the just solution ? Conquer and occupy, stay there until
no one can get you out and then claim it's yours because
there are X number of people who were born there ?

If we do want to stop this, where do we draw the line ? Let's say
we freeze the clock at 1975 ? That means everyone who moved before
1975 stays there and everyone else has to leave. 

Why 1975 and not 1945 ? or 1918 ?  

It seems like some kind of a compromise is necessary because
using simple principles doesn't lead anywhere. Which principle
do you use and why? 

I don't see how the rights of the people born there and raised 
there can be protected while the rights of the people who
were already there and didn't want people moving in against
their wishes could also be protected, without using some
kind of a compromise.

It also seems that the 'principle' should in itself be kind of general
since there might be similar problems elsewhere and also
at later times. It seems like this is how international
common law can be developed.

 
>Politics do not consider noble or not-quite-so past in making 
>current decisions - though they actively use current moods of 
>society (e.g. like weight of memory of good old days without XX
>or popularity and reality of idea of throwing XX away). Some of them
>are unresponsible enough to try to grab whatever they can - 
>and only the balance of powers (not necessarily 
>those of armies or nukes - there are a lot of others - e.g. ability
>of YY nation to withstand invaders) may stop them.

Yes, thank you. This would be called 'real politique'. It seems
to be a euphemism for 'Might makes right.' So what's the
verdict; Shall it be 'Today and tomorrow as yesterday' or
is it time for something different ?

Yes, we all know that certain nations which now are in an
advantageous position might say; "Why is it that it's always
been like this, and now that it's our turn to do the same
thing everyone else has been doing for centuries, we are being
told that it's not good? Everybody else did it?" For example,
Iran might say; "Well, the French threw out the Protestants,
the Spaniards, the Jews and Muslims, and others did similar
things and developed homogeneous nations. Now it's our turn
to assimilate the Kurds, and Azeris, etc and make a homogeneous
nation, and we are told that it's bad."

Serbians might say similar things. Why can't they be given
a chance to get rid of the Bosnians and create homogeneous
nations like others in Europe, then there'd be no problems ?

This is an unfairness argument against change; that is, since
it has alwasy been like so-and-so, why change the rules in
the middle of the game and screw over nations which didn't
have the chance to do so-and-so for a variety of reasons?

The argument against it is that if things always stay the
same, we'll never learn from history and repeat the same
mistakes and still live in a semi-civilized world.

Both sides on the Estonia issue seem to be arguing something
along these lines. ONe side says freeze the clock now; Russians
all stay. The other says; No, we'll freeze it but after they
get out, that is; we'll freeze it back about WWII.

It's reasonable to expect people to stick to principles which
will be favorable to 'their people'. If new rules and principles
favor one side, they'll say "Sure, let's change, and get civilized."
If it's not favorable, the answer might be; "Well, everybody else
did it. Why not us? Why blame us for doing what everybody else
did?"


Again, even if some people do seem to have simple principles,
some might say simplistic, and might feel they have the
answers, I don't see it as so simple. I can understand the
Estonians feeling that their lands are colonized. I also understand
that Russians born and raised there didn't do anything to
create this situation. 


>BTW, existence of rather strong (or is it?) UN is current reality.
>UN principles were created by aged, quiet and tired nations not long ago.
>They are very peaceful. Would UN be the same force hundred years from now?

Thank you for your rational and well-thought response. I am for
a stronger UN. It doesn't have to be along the same lines as today or
along US national bi-cameral legislature or any other nation's.  It
should be 'workable'. The facts are that strong nations can't be
pushed around. But at least a semblance of justice must be shown
and the UN must show itself effective at averting or stopping
large scale wars and bringing about a general international
atmosphere of peace and law...


>Anyway, answers to your questions: It depends. All that depends...

Yes... it does.  I can see you're rational and cool unlike
some people on USENET. 

>(Un-) Fortunately general principles are usually unusable in any
>real situation. Maybe it's good - I don't want to see 
>how the Earth would explode when somebody would try 
>to enforce UN principles in hard communist China.
>(Or communist principles in all other world).
>Be patient, as they say.

Agreed. You can't force it on USA or CIS either. That's
why the UN infrastructure has to be 'workable'.. 

And that's why the Balts should be careful. They may be
undoing democracy and the democratic forces in Russia if
they insist on quick and complete solutions. There's a very
real fear in some quarters that the transition between communism
and democracy might be through a period of authoritarian
government--not totalitarian but not yet democratic.

I think the Balts should give Yeltsin and the Russian democratic
forces (and the Russian people) some breathing room. Be 
patient, as you say..
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet