From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Subject: Minorities in majority and other silly stuff
Organization: Enea Data AB
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:06:52 GMT

Milan Stojanovic (stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu) writes:
>Erland Sommarskog (sommar@enea.se) writes:
>>>Serbs are fighting for
>>>self-determination, granted to every _nation_ in ex-Yugoslavia,
>>...
>>Sure, what about the Albanians? Or they are not a nation? Just
>>Unter-Menchen? Liar.
>
>Hold your donkeys, Erland.  Have you ever heard me to say something bad
>about Albanians?
>
>In ex-Yugoslavia there were six _nations_ and many national minorities.
>IL allows self-determination for nations, not minorities.

And the Albanians were not worthy being a "nation" but only a "minority"?
Funny, they were more numerous than the Slovenes, weren't they? And
tell me who are in majority Kosovo?

One excuse I've heard for this bizarre arrangement is that there is
already an Albanian state, so therefore the Albanians in Yugoslavia 
could not be a nation. I don't know if Milan Stojanovic agrees with 
this argument, but if we apply this funny logic, we can only conclude
that Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina cannot be a nation, only 
a minority, since there is a Serbian (and Montenegrin) state, and 
therefore they are not granted self-determination.

>Constitution of SFR of Yugoslavia allowed for self-determination
>of nations, not republics or provinces. So Albanians are entitled
>to the highest degree of autonomy, but not to separate state, according
>to the international law.

Please quote relevant parts of international law that makes distinction
between "nation" and "minorites". Particulary were "minority" is used
is the same funny sense the SFRY constitution. But, of course, if
there is such a law, neither have the Serbs in Croatia and B-H any
right to seceede. If you are minority, it doesn't help if you are
actually in majority somewhere, minority you are.

>Of course, international law was already broken in the case of 
>Yugoslavia, under pressure of Germany mostly, so this might not 
>be an argument any more.

Germany? What has Germany to do with it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, like
any good Serb, he throws in Germany whenever there's need to point
at bad guy. Funny guys, those Serbs.

>In any case, I do believe that there must be territorial settlement
>between Albanians and Serbs, which would make all sides equally happy
>an equally unhappy, so the future friendly relations would be secured.

Well, I am glad to see you say something sensieble. I suppose
you realize that this territorial settlement means that Serbia
will have to kiss almost every sqaure inch of Kosovo bye-bye.

>>If the Serbs cannot get their self-determination by means of
>>ethnical cleansing it is highly disputable that this slime deserve
>>it. If they are so lowly primitive creatures, they should be be
>>put behind lock and have the key thrown away.
>
>Erland, you sound just like those Germans who committed 2000 attacks
>against their minorities in 1992. This language seems to suit you well.

Milan, why do you talk about Germans all the time? And why do you
write "their minorities"? Do those minorities belong to the handful
right-wing extremists who are guilty to these deeds?

How many attacks have Serbs committed against their Croats, Muslims,
Albanians and others this year? Or you don't want to talk about
that? More fun to drivel about Germans and WWII Croats?
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se