Balkan, Chechen Conflicts

Re “In Chechnya, a Caution for Bosnia Hawks,” Column Right, Jan. 17:

Jonathan Clarke’s first mistake is to compare the Chechens to the Serbs of Bosnia. He implies that the Serbs will fight to keep their country, as have the Chechens. But the Serbs, unlike the Chechens, are the minority in Bosnia. They have been given the arms of the former Yugoslav army. Many of the Serb fighters are not from Bosnia. The Bosnians, however, are fighting for their homes, as are the Chechens. NATO air strikes on Pale or Belgrade would eliminate the need for ground troops if the arms embargo on the Bosnians were lifted.

Clarke advocates mediation over the skills of “a gunsmith.” Four years of “mediation” have only served to solidify Serbian gains.

LINDA HURLEY

Orange

When the Yugoslav government and army, without firing a shot, tried in Slovenia to preserve the borders and the territorial integrity of a viable, legitimate and for 70 years an internationally recognized country--Yugoslavia--the European Community and the United States did nothing positive. On the contrary, led by Germany, they did everything in their power to dissolve Yugoslavia by quickly recognizing first Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia and Herzegovina, then Macedonia. The present-day analogy would be for Germany to recognize Chechnya without consulting its allies and for the U.N. then to send troops to protect an “internationally recognized” country and create a “safe haven” in Grozny.

When the Algerian government in 1991 canceled elections which the Muslim fundamentalists were about to win, there was hardly a squeak heard in protest from the United States, let alone an invasion a la Grenada or Haiti to restore “democracy.” And the West does not like Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade even though he has been twice democratically elected.

So, there are “good” and “bad” attempts to preserve the territorial integrity of a country and “good” and “bad” winners of democratic elections, just as there are apparently “good Muslims” in Bosnia and the Gulf, and “bad Muslims” everywhere else. The answer to the apparent conundrum is that power and economic interests, not justice or international law, guide Western behavior.

VLADIMIR KONECNI

Solano Beach

Croatia’s termination of the United Nations peacekeeping mission on its soil is more likely to promote peace than foster war (editorial, Jan. 13). Having taken some calculated risks, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman already reminded the world of the plight of more than a quarter-million non-Serb refugees from the “ethnically cleansed” areas under Serb control. With the Croatian people as determined as ever and with his military strong, Tudjman is likely to garner more respect from his enemies.

Now the ball is clearly in the court of Milosevic. If Milosevic really wishes the U.N. to stay in Croatia and protect local Serbs, let him join the world in recognition of Croatia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He would be surprised how willing Croatia would then be to invite the U.N. troops to monitor peaceful reintegration of the occupied areas and to guarantee the highest level of observance of human and minority rights in the process.

STANIMIR VUK-PAVLOVIC

Special Adviser for Public Education

National Federation of Croat Americans

Rochester, Minn.