From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Intervene because they are Muslims?
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:01:25 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Kutluk Ozguven (kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk) writes:
>Marco; this is not a complex international problem. Serbia has
>invaded 2/3 of Bosnia, and has kicked out nearly 2 million Muslims,
>and Serbian irregulars  has been killing thousands either systematicly
>or during the kick-out.

If it had been that simple. But Serbia hasn't really invaded B-H.
The very past of the troops are people from B-H itself. There are
no regular troops from Serbia. One can however suspect that Serbia
are providing the Bosnian Serbs with the supplies they need. We can
have a similar philosophical discussion on whether Croatia has invaded
their share of B-H or if Herceg-Bosna appeared only from within.

>This is not a complex territorial problem
>between two equivalent countries. There is a genocide here.

I can't escape a side note here. If you are prepared to put the label
"genocide" on what is going on - I am not - you have to agree that
even if we accept the Turkish version of what happened to the Armenians
in 1915 that was also a genocide. After all the order to move the 
Armenians elsewhere taste quite much of ethnical cleansning, doesn't it?

>The Western organizations must show that they are not a Northern/Christian
>league with double standards but an establishment built on strong
>values and with a future. The unfavorable attitude of Europe to the
>destruction of Bosnia is going to create an atmosphere that will
>cost the West more than the commitment to protect Muslims.
>...
>But the Western strategists know that their gain by stopping the massacre
>will be much higher than their loss of money, oil and casualties.
>I believe that that many think that there will be confrontation
>with Islam in future anyway, and therefore the repression of it should start
>now, when they are weak, when Islamic revival is young, and when the
>Muslim world is much poorer to defend itself. So the first Muslim
>victims of the "new world order", but unfortunately not the last.

It seems here that Kutluk Ozguven are arguing for intervention just
because they Muslims are Muslims, and also hinting at that the reason
that the West does not to want to intervene is because they are
Muslims.

Of course, I can only speak for myself and not for the rest of the
Western world, but the reason I'm against armed intervention in B-H
has nothing to do with that there are Muslims one side. I simply
find the goals for an intervention being very unclear, lowering the
odds for a success to indefenceable levels. If nothing else, assume
that the Serbs are actually defeated what are we to do when the
Muslims are Croats start to clash?

Assume for a moment that the Muslims in B-H hadn't been Muslims but
Protestants. (Or why not Bogomils as they were before the Ottoman
conquest.) Would that change your attitude? It wouldn't change mine,
since my standpoint is not founded on any ethnical or religious
affilation.

When the international community decides what to do and not to do 
in this and any other conflict, it cannot look what religion or what
language the parts speak. It must look at the hard facts, not only
in terms of guilt, but also what it actually can achieve by various
efforts. This mean that there is always at least one side which feels
disfavoured. And sometimes this side is Muslim.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Life is wonderful when the wonderlife is full
Xref: sparky soc.culture.turkish:8759 soc.culture.europe:7183