 |
 |
Friends, Maybe this will become a wider conversation, as it seems from messages coming from URBANET list. If you want to join that list, send a message to [log in to unmask] with a message in the body: SUBSCRIBE URBANET <full_name> Sincerely: Gabor Varnai Date: Sun, 21 Feb 99 10:24:20 CET From: patsilarasvasilis To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Bosnia, Kossovo and Kurdistan Gabor's Question I think this is a very naive approach to intra-country conflicts, because it does not take into consideration the role of outside intervention and interference. Yogoslavia, with all its shortcomings and lack of democracy, had achieved a remarkable level of cohesiveness among its various racial and religious groups, up until the great powers decided to break the country up, by arming, instigating and siding opensly with a minority group, the Muslim Bosnians. The same disastrous prescription is now repeated in Kossovo. In reality it has very little to do with the people's perception of power structure, but rather it is a clear cut reaction to outside bland manipulation of local sentiments and politics. The argument becomes clear when the case of Bosnia (and Kossovo) is compared to the case of Kurdistan. In the case of Yogoslavia, the Muslims are instigated and armed to the boot (by whom?) to revolt against Serbs, allegedly in order to protect their rights and national (!!) identity. The rights of these precious minorities have to reign suprime in our consiense, thus the big propaganda about human (read Muslim Bosnian) rights. In the case of Kurdistan, on the other hand, which is an ancient (Muslim too) nation with a far more dinstictive identity than the Muslims in Bosnia or Kossovo, no rights are recognised and even their national identity is not even acknowledged. Twenty five million people fighting against anihilion by the Turkish rulling bladdy military regime are called terrorist (Muslim Bosnian and Kossovans are not terrorists?) and they are refused the mere right of existance, so eagerly recognised to Bosnians and Kossovans. In the last 10 years or so, 4,000 Kurd villages have been erased from the surface of the earth and millions of people have been killed, while tousands are being imprisoned and torured in an holocaust every bit as bad as Hitler's percecussion of Jews and other minorities. Turkey's military regime is the only fascist regime in power in the world today. A few days ago the leader of Kurds was illegally abdacted by the Turks in Kenya and as we speak he is being tortured and subjected to humiliation, much worse than the one suffered by Stalin's opponents in the infamous Moscow trials. None of this becomes headlines, however. It behoves all those who try to control our lifes to keep silent about the real causes of all these troubles and just talk some theoritical "bull" about people's faith in representative or authoretarian regimes. This analysis may be suitable to western countries, but have no application whatsoever to Yugoslavia, Kossovo, Kurdistan and other troubled places around the world, where human life is cheap. Vasilis Patsilaras >>Gabor, >> >>You don't just ask the easy questions, do you? >> >>I have been discussing something very similar with a group of my friends >>scattered around the world. I think it is the Politics of Desperation. As >>people's faith in representative or even authoritarian forms of government >>wane, they need to replace it with other institutions. These institutions >>need to be _obvious_ in both their form and execution. So you end up >>Bosnians and Serbs, who once lived together peacefully, fighting each other >>for land and lineage that none of them are old enough to remember. >> >>When under authoritarian rule, they had both other things to worry about >>_and_ no hope of being able to divide land. In addition, they had faith in >>their government. This doesn't mean that they _liked_ their government -- >>but they had faith that it was stable and that it could, for better or >>worse, act. >> >>Once that comes into question, any number of political scenarios can >>begin -- depending on who builds the first demonstratable movement or power >>structure. Being able to divide up ethnically, racially, or by religion is >>the easiest to see, easiest to defend, and easiest in terms of being able >to >>identify the problem (the other race, creed, etc.). >> >>These groups are usually focused on one leader -- but everyone feels like >>they are part of the movement because they are actually participating in >it. >>They feel great ownership in it. Whereas before, in their representative >>democracy or authoritarian regime, they felt virtualy no ownership due to >>their incredible level of removal from any vestiges of power. >> >>Then people start fighting. And when people die, the survivors feel more >>need to achieve their goals and more personal ownership in the cause. They >>pay a very high price for this ownership and do not easily let it go. >> >>This is, for what it is worth, my quick version of what you asked. >> >>Jim >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Urban and Regional Planners Network >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Varnai Gabor >>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 12:24 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: question to all >>> >>> >>> Friends, >>> Here is a little opinion poll: >>> I'm observing a phenomenon in Hungary that is: >>> In critical social situations - what Hungary is in - >>> people do not claim organisational forms of >>> democracy more, while they claim to a great extent >>> direct, participative forms of it. >>> Did anybody observe phenomena like this one? >>> Sincerely: Gabor Varnai >>> >>> >>> ----- signature block follows ----- >>> >>> Gabor VARNAI >>> PARDES Urban Policy Research and Consulting Office; >>> Institute of Sociology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences >>> Felsoerdosor 12. >>> Budapest, Hungary >>> H-1068 >>> tel/fax: +36-1-3515465 >>> e-mail: [log in to unmask] >>> if your answer undelivered: [log in to unmask] >>> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%