From: borbor@divsun.unige.ch (Boris Borcic)
Subject: WESTERN vs US left (Re: THE UGLIER ROLE OF THE WESTERN LEFT)
Followup-To: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.croatia,alt.society.revolution,alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
Organization: University of Geneva
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:39:15 GMT

In article <M7KVBRXS@cc.swarthmore.edu>, news@cc.swarthmore.edu (USENET
News System) wrote:
> 
> @5 THE UGLIER ROLE OF FASCIST WESTERN CORRUPTED LEFT
>  

While probably editing out the "FASCIST" out of the title, I
would happily translate this piece of text to French if the
author provided a signature.

This said, the analysis does not fit perfectly to our local left,
which is also western...  It fits even less the German left.

The influences on the left here in Geneva come in roughly equal
amounts from the French and from the German lefts. The French
influence more through direct cultural diffusion (e.g. media)
and the German sensibility because of the established links
between peace organisations.

I don't feel the criticisms apply at all to the Germans. As
for the French side, the attitudes need also to be explained
in the frame of the French political theatre. For instance,
quite a few left-minded people over-reacted when the
extreme right started a crusade to help Croatia. "The friends
of our foes are the foes of our friends".

A tragic event (in terms of bringing the French left to see
reality) was the publication in the very influential 
"Le Monde Diplomatique" of July of a paper by De La Gorce,
chief redactor of the periodic "Defense Nationale", 
attributing the responsibility of the bloodbath in
former Yu to the precipitious recognition of the secessionist
republics under the pressure of Germany. The paper
completely overlooked that war largely antedated recognition
in the case of Slovenia and Croatia, that the first ceasefire
to hold in Croatia came with or just before the recognition,
and especially that feats like the destruction of Vukovar by 
the JNA and their impact on the French public opinion was
what forced the French government to go along with recognition.
Much more than the German pressure.

As for Bosnia, even though the present activity of the
peace-keeping forces leaves doubt as to their effectiveness,
my big regret remains that the referendum for independance took
place before the arrival of the blue helmets which 
were to be seated in Sarajevo. In my view, the only case
that can be made for the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia
to have been too early is that it commanded that Bosnia would
also have to be recognised (the case of Macedonia seems
to falsify that), and that the recognition would ignite war 
in Bosnia.

What actually pulled the trigger was not the recognition but
the referendum. And, as far as criticism here (in the paper
of De La Gorce) is not directed at the failure to 
obey intemporal *ethical* principles guiding recognition,
 so much as at the *strategical* untimeliness of specific
decisions which allowed the worst to happen, one may as well 
accuse the policy that precipitated the referendum to take 
place before the deployment of peace-keeping forces. In this
regard, the French diplomacy is no less responsible than the
German one, as far as I can judge.

Again, if one reasons from the (un-)timeliness of decisions
in (evolving) critical situations instead of reasoning from
untemporal principles, one is free to choose the point where
one starts to reconstruct History. And the question remains
whether the *immediate* recognition of Slovenia and Croatia
on the basis of their right to self-determination would not 
have been less costly.

Regards,

Boris Borcic
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia