Another Serbian Response to NHC and IHF
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 12:14:28 +0300 (EET DST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Another Serbian Response to NHC and IHF
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Greek Helsinki Monitor <[email protected]>
Another Serbian Response to NHC and IHF
Letter to the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the International
Helsinki Federation for Human Rights regarding their invitation to a
dialogue on preservation of independent forces in the Serbian society
Dear friends and colleagues,
Your letter of 18 May was prompted by an Appeal made by nineteen
Belgrade NGOs on 6 April, calling on "all those responsible" for the
current "NATO destruction of /Yugoslavia/" to strive to renew the
peace process. Although not a signatory to the Appeal of 6 April, as a
Yugoslav human rights activist presently associated with the Belgrade
Center for Anti-War Action, I feel a need to contribute to a
discussion on the unfolding human tragedy in Kosovo, as well as in
other parts of Yugoslavia, on the ways in which it could and should be
overcome, and on the role of the civil sector and the NGOs.
In doing so, I am mindful of the unselfish and useful support provided
over the past decade to the civil sector in Yugoslavia by the many
international and foreign NGOs, not the least among which have always
been your Committee and your Federation. I also remember with warmth
and appreciation the many visits to Yugoslavia by members of the
various Helsinki committees, some of whom I am glad to count as
personal friends. That is why I believe that the dialogue may help to
overcome some of the differences pointed out in your letter,
particularly if some of them, as I expect, turn out to be based on
misunderstandings. Let me now turn to the texts of your letter and the
Appeal.
The Appeal does not deny either the existence of ethnic cleansing by
the government forces in Kosovo or the causal effects of those actions
on the exodus of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. At the same time, the
Appeal points out that some, at least, are leaving in fear of NATO
bombing and because of military actions by KLA. Such a multi-causal
explanation seems to me quite plausible.You, on the other hand, claim
unequivocally that "neither the NATO bombing campaign nor military
actions by KLA" are responsible for the exodus. With all due respect,
this single-cause argument seems to me somewhat simplicistic, better
suited for political than humanitarian purposes. When one considers
the intensity of NATO bombing in Ksoovo and the collateral damage
caused thereby, as well as the deep rifts and the internecine
struggles within the Kosovo Albanian community, it would be surprising
if these two factors did not contribute to the exodus of the civilian
population.
Your view that Belgrade NGOs should have addressed their appeal to the
FRY and Serbian authorities does not seem quite justified. As I read
it, the Appeal seems addressed to the domestic authorities as much as
to the international public opinion. It does call for an "end of the
ethnic cleansing process and immediate return of all refugees" as well
as for "immediate stop to the bombing campaign".
You ask the Belgrade NGOs to "recognize ... that, in priciple, the
NATO intervention was not an arbitrary act of aggression". They may
recognize that it is not arbitrary, but they may still worry - as I
know I do - that it IS an act of aggression. It is indeed difficult to
find another word but "aggression" for an armed attack by a military
alliance on any one country, which was not preceeded by that country's
military action against the alliance or any of its members.
This issue of aggression raises several questions, on which I would
like to hear your views. As a member of a Center for Anti-War Action
and as a convinced pacifist, I am in a comfortable position. I deem it
my duty to protest against any war and any use of military force. But
I do understand that not all NGOs need be pacifist and that, under
certain conditions, they may support armed interventions, as you seem
to be doing now.
However, I note that, under Article 2.1 of your Statutes, the purpose
of the Federation is, inter alia: "to support ... the principles of
the Final Act of the COnference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
signed in Helsinki, Finland, in August 1975...". The principles of the
Helsinki Final Act unequivocally stress the obligation of all
participating States to refrain from the threat or use of force in
their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in
general.
What is IHF's and your personal position regarding the current use of
force against Yugoslavia in view of the IHF's Statutes and the
Helsinki Final Act? Was it possible for NATO members to persist with
negotiations and diplomacy in order to avoid a military solution?
Could your organizations have advocated peaceful conflict resolution
as opposed to the war? These questions seem all the more pertinent
since a Helsinki Committee (that of Serbia) is a signatory of the very
Appeal which you have so harshly criticized in your letter.
In your letter, you ask how you, "from the outside, should address the
new situation and how /you/ can continue to support /us/ in /our/
current plight". A possible answer to this question is: by
re-apprising the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act - particularly
those which treat of the use of force in international relations.
With best wishes,
Ivan Jankovic
Belgrade,
26 May 1999
-------------- balkanhr mailing list
To unsubscribe please send mail to [email protected] with the
word "unsubscribe balkanhr" (without the ") in the subject.
Please report abuse at [email protected]
--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================