breaking up Yugoslavia

[gene_parrish]

Here is some news from a Serbian cite.
It sounds like the West is preparing to futher break up yugoslavia.
Of all the states created in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has the biggest number of ethnic communities, Kostunica set out adding that this fact "obliges us, as a democratic state, to pay much attention to the respect of the human rights of national minorities or minority communities."
"This can and will be done by respecting suitable international democratic standards regarding minority communities and by bringing the suitable
law", Kostunica said.

The second way to secure the rights of minority communities is t0 decentralize power in the form of self-management, either local or regional, Kostunica said and added that that was the plan of the present
government.

[Wendist]

Hello Gene

Actually I see the complete opposite when I read Kostunica´s speech. I see this as the only way to save Yugoslavia and I wish that those words had been said by yugoslav PM Ante Markovic in 1989.

If he had done that, then perhaps we could have had a very different Yugoslavia today and we would have had a very different 1990´s.

What Kostunica is talking about is, in my opinion, not a cheap trick by the west to divide and conquer but a basic and vital principle in democratic governance.

Any minority, be it ethnic, religious or political that is asked to put the control of its future in the hands of a government, led by a ethnic, religious or political majority, must feel genuinly safe to be able to do so.

Any minority that feels it is not given a fair treatment by the majority or who fears persecution will never accept to be ruled by the majority. The various minorities that broke free of Yugoslavia in the early 90´s did so, I think, not because of some western scheme but because they felt that their own government( the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ) was either unable or unwilling to protect the minorities of its own people.

"To a democraticly elected government the rights of the minority should be more important than the rights of the majority."
former swedish PM Ingvar Carlsson

Regards Thomas

[gene_parrish]

Thomas,
You make black white and white black but most people say indigestion caused by too much acid and take anti acid. Now some doctors say opposite. Indigestion caused by not enough acid. Who is right???
Part of the fall of the Roman empire was that they let local areas provide their own soldiers and be stationed in their local area's but when Rome was in trouble the soldiers wanted to defend home only. In the US the soldiers from florida are sent to California to serve and the ones from California go to New York. This mix prevents local loyalites.
But we have local police and state militi.
I guess it is all in how you impliment the power division.
Gene

[Wendist]

Hello Gene

I can not give you any answers on indegestion, I am not a doctor. But I can try to explain what I meant about minorities feeling safe. Since you Gene are an american I will use an american analogy, it is not an exact match but I think it is close enough.

In the late 18th century king George III of England ruled an empire stretching across the world. Englands colonies in North America was important to crown and parliament because of the revenues they brought in to the treasury.

But the colonists were not happy, they felt that the government was not treating them fairly. They had no representation in parliament, I belive one "slogan" read No taxation whithout representation. In other areas as well the colonists as a group were not treated as fullworthy citizens. This, I think, qualifies them as a minority.

When the colonists first approached the government in London with their complaints they did not demand independance, indeed they still saw themselves as loyal to the crown. But as time passed and the situation got worse rather than better the colonists finally realised that there were no future for them under English rule and so they decided to break free of England.

Now Gene, I know you knew all this before but try to imagine what it would have been like if George III had made the speech that Kostunica made. Then there would not have been any mistreatment of the colonist "minority", no civil war( or war of independance as you call it) and the people of the british empire could, in good order, have decided what their future should be like.

Regards Thomas

[gene_parrish]

Hello Thomas,
You struck home with that one. I see your point and am afraid I must agree with you. You used known facts and reasoning that already existed in my brain.
You must see how I obtained my reasoning of conqest. I suspect anything the West does to Yugoslavia. A slick salesman can con me for a short time but I don't think you are conning me now.
Do you agree with the bombing of Yugoslavia homes, Tv stations, factorys, bridges etc? I really slanted that question. I just wanted your input on Kosovo since you are the only one to convince me that anything we are doing in Yugoslavia is for good and not for bad.
Gene

[Wendist]

Hello Gene

Yes that was indeed a tough question and I have been pondering on how best to answer it. I do belive that Serbia at the time of the NATO intervention had problems that were to big for the country itself to handle and that outside interference was therefore necessary to break the vicious circle.

Whether a military campaign was the right way or not to deal with the problem is a difficult question to answer. At the time I thought it was necessary, I like everybody else had for almost a decade been feed the horrible pictures of suffering refugees, ethnic cleansing and mass graves from all parts of the old Yugoslavia. We had also witnessed the inept handling of the conflict in Bosnia by the UN and the European Community, nothing seemed to get any better and everyone was losing patience. This had to end, it had to end right away and NATO seemed to be the only one that could make it happen.

I still do not know if there could have been another way, I know that Dr. Woland several times mentioned a deal brokered by the russians that was accepted by the serbs but at the last moment NATO rejected it. Since it was never implimented no one knows if it would have worked but the possibility that it may have is enough to make me wonder.

That NATO chosed a bombing campaign is logical considering the difference between how many ground units and how many air units that could be deployed quickly to the region. A possible second reason was that NATO may have considered the serbian army to be more of a threat than the serbian air defense and military commanders tend to favour attacking the weakest link in the enemy chain.

It is always difficult to justify wars, people get killed, homes destroyed, wounds are created that will take long time to heal. But I do belive the west had good intentions, they may have chosen the wrong method but it is always easier to see that afterwards.

Regards Thomas

[Nonson]

"...the West had good intentions..."? Since when, and for what reason?