From: mb2p@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Marco  Bertamini)
Subject: Re: Who is at fault for the Serbia-Bosnia War?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:50:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.032741.25950@latcs1.lat.oz.au> jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes:
>	Has anyone out there thought seriously about who the blame for
>all this mess should be placed on? Apart from the obvious three factions
>of Serbs and Bosnians and Croars?
>	I put it to you that the EEC first of all, followed by the USA
>secondly are very much responsible! 
>	These two entities are the defacto leaders of the world at the 
>momment and they set the norm, that is what they say goes. The rest of
>the world seems to accept their word as the bibles own truth. So when
>they pontificate most believe them without reservation. Particularly
>people who tend to take everything they see and hear on TV as true and
>self-evident. However I do not accept everything I am told if logic does
>not support the argument, so here is my assesment of the situation. 

You really believe that? I see the US and even more the EC has
very much in trouble with the many changes around them. Everything
used to be so simple with the two superpowers playing the cold war!
Now, you say that people follow what US and EC say as a bible.
I think it is just the opposite. There is a lot of resentment
against rich country (although sometimes it is well grounded).

>	The EEC had no right to recognise some arbitrary nation "bosnia"
>simply because it was a specific internal region of the colapsing "Yugoslavia",
>if from the begining the EEC had recoginsed the division of this region so
>that "serbs could be part of Serbia", "croats part of Croatia" and the "muslims
>independent and part of a smaller but homogeneous Bosnia", then this war
>could have firstly have been avoided, secondly the situation now where Serbia
>will get more territory than she deserves would not occur, thirdly the chance
>for a long term peace would have been much higher.

sounds so simple. The fact is, there are minorities everywhere in Europe.
In fact the differences within ex Yugoslavia are small compared to other
places. Did you consider the possibility that people of different cultures
may share the very same cities?

>	But No, If the EEC had proposed some such a fair solution that would
>disrupt the 'status quo' because all sorts of People around the world would
>demand such fair solutions, espesialy those situations such as Ireland,
>Cyprus, the Basks (spain), internal Italian problems (north vs. south),
>Scotland (independent?), the Kurds (a nation with no state!), etc, etc, etc.
>	Oh god! How many cans of worms would this open up?

I agree on the fact that the EC has responsabilities, but this idea
of a plan to avoid fair solutions to conflicts all over the world is
an exaggeration.

>One may say that in many places around the world different nationalities live
>harmoniously in the same state (country), so why can't this prove the case in
>Bosnia? Because there is no good will thats why, and nothing is forcing them
>anymore like communism did. 
>So what should happen? Well what do people do when they can't live together, 
>they get a divorce thats what. Consequently given the lack of good faith 
>a division, taking into acount the percentages of the populations 
>(so as to divide fairly), is the best solution.

sure, but even divorces are rarely that linear. 

>	No doubt such thinking world wide at this time would encourage
>fragmentation of many nations which face internal problem due to the
>increase of "nationalism". And it can not be disputed that larger state
>prosper as a rule more than smaller ones do. 

this is another oversimplification. Big markets and free trade are
important, but political unity does not necessary lead to richness.

>But forcing this union is
>not the way to go. If some peoples cannot see the advantage of being part 
>of a greater whole, then they should be permitted to seek independence,
>in this case this holds for the 'serbs' in Bosnia as much as the 'bosnians'
>in ex-Yugoslavia.

nobody is contesting that, not even Serbia in words.

>	On an aside, evidence that uniting is good is the EEC 
>itself, where the partners expect to reap the rewards of economic cooperation
>that will result from the Union, but it is self-evident that all partners
>must be willing. And for the EEC to arogantly impose a Bosnian state in 
>the form it use to be when ex-Yugoslavia was alive is ludicrous.

there is a catch22 here. Had Bosnia not been recognised by EC you could
have said that this was the excuse Serbia used to invade Bosnia. The
bottom line: it's all the EC fault.

>	Consider why the EEC while itself in the process of uniting into 
>a powerful federation, immediately recognised the independence of all the
>ex-Soviet states, this was done because divided they would be weaker, there
>is the old saying after all "divide and conquer".

I think you read alt.conspiracy too often. BTW the EC is still under 
construction, we do not know exactly where it will take us. The
reality is that we have a common market but politically Europe does
not exist (just ad Islam does not exist as a single political mind).

>	As it is the status quo is good for the EEC, so who cares for the
>problems of the rest of the world, as long as the dollars keep coming in,
>there is nothing to worry about! 

wait a second you just said that Bosnia should not have been recognised
because there was a nation called Yugoslavia and now you say that Europe
always try to preserve the status quo. You can't have it both ways.

if what you're saying is that the Europeans are scared by a possible
escalation of the conflict in the Bakans and in other parts of Europe,
you are perfectly right. It that a crime?

>	It is sad to see the EEC in general supporting any "defacto" situation
>just because it is convinient and not try to find working long term solutions.
>We are used to the UN doing that!

again, you are right, we should be trying to do more to
stop the war. But if you read the recent postings on soc.culture.europe
there is large disagreement on the way to do it.

>	If you think I am cynic you are wrong this how things are, and just
>because we live in the western world does not mean we should support every
>thing the "west" does.

very true.

>The big problem would be to divide areas where population was intermixed.
>But if this was an easy problem we wouldn't expect of our leaders to solve
>it, anyone could do it. 
>	Shifting populations may have been necessary to keep the resulting
>states as continous, united and integrated areas. This may seem difficult
>and even cruel, but if done peacefully and by mutual conscent would be 
>acceptable, since a presume people would prefer to live with there own,
>the solution would be once and for all.

actually I like multiculturalism and I do not think that people always
want to live with their own. In every case I assure you that your plan
to match borders and cultures is not practical. Just think about the fact
that to do that you should also stop immigration. Is that what you want,
a Germany with only arian people in it? I don't think so.

>	Also consider that these people lived in a communist state till
>now and so I argue that moving house would not be so bad, (not as bad as
>becoming a refugee which is the case now!), as it would involve exchanging
>one property for an other similar (in a capitalist system this wouldn't
>work since we are not all equal in terms of wealth, while in communist system
>with the exception of the party faithfulls -nobody cares for them anyway- 
>all others where supposed to be equal, which implies similar levels of
>private wealth for all) in a new area of ones own culture would have been
>acceptable.

Yugoslavia was an atypical communist country. And we are talking about
Europe anyway, every small town here has centuries of history in its
walls! (I'm sorry if this sounds chauvinistic but non-Europeans always 
forget it).

>	As the EEC was mistaken to act as it did, that is why it is reluctant
>to employ military force against Serbia, since the EEC likes the solution 
>given to this situation, although posibbly not the stupidly inefective way
>the serbs are going about it, lets face it they should have obtained half of
>"bosnia" by now, kick out all muslims, taken in all serbs and made Peace.
>That they have not done so is testament to their incompetence and propably
>their greed for more than is necessary for them to conquer.

yeah. I hate it when my enemy is even incompetent in running a war. :-(

>	The strategy employed however is not new, it has been used before,
>and the outcome is easy to 'see'. So wouldn't a peacefull division have been
>better? And besides the disassembly of ex-Yugoslavia could have meant a new
>beginning, so why not go for the 'obvious' solutions of splitting up 'bosnia'
>in a peaceful way and as part of the recognision conditions, instead of forcing
>the war.

I guess what you are saying is that they are stupid. Maybe that is
always the case in a war.

>	Now because of the inevitable inertia of the status quo if the 
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
??

>'defacto' solution is an unfair one, is the events so far point to for the 
>Bosnians, then there will be a long and uneasy peace to come, which is not
>a good solution to any "logical man's thinking". Can anyone "see" how since 
>things have gone done this path, how the EEC could save the situation?
>
>If anyone disagrees lets hear his resoning. I am willing to reconsider
>my verdict.
>				The simple solution is almost always the best!
>									jd.

"For every complex problem there is a very simple solution
 and it is almost always wrong."    U.Eco

ciao,  Marco
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| mb2p@Virginia.EDU   Office phone:(804)982-4744  Home: 293-5453   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "America doesn't exist. I know it because I lived there."|
| from _Mon Oncle d'Amerique_  (1980)     by Alain Resnais |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:7424 soc.culture.romanian:781 talk.politics.soviet:7073