What We Learn from History….

While I take your point, I think that your response is fairly typical.

There is an unfortunate tendancy in considering all questions of what has happened here in the past to cite examples of what the OTHER GUYS have done - as if to justify by negative example.

In the world of Bad Decisions, many have been made with and without justification, with and without provocation, with and without underpinning rationales. Such is the superincumbant burden of history.

I think it may be more interesting to explore the current Helsinki connotations regarding the decision about Kosovo - especially as Russia seems to think so - rather than roll back the curtain and find instances where a nation has violated the same rules which it previously signed up for, or even wrote.

This is not a defense of 1999 - I am not qualified to enter that arena. Further, this is not a blanket excuse for all wrong-doing in the past by any party.

I merely observe that it is unfortunate that as soon as an opportunity arises for finger-pointing, it is always taken.

...but what's your point?

IMO, you cannot fully take things out of their historical context, especially when it's convenient, and when the history is so recent.

So, what is the point of your topic anyway? I just made a remark about Helsinki Act being already violated in the past (also regarding Kosovo). So I don't know why are you playing dumb asking all those philosophic questions...

Some people care, because they want to make this world a better place, wanna make an effort in securing the future of their children and contribute to the mankind. Some people simply don't. For more info on the people who don't search Internet for Kyotto Protocol issue as viewed by U.S. administration. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

And not, for example, Chinese government? Which is going to surpass US production of carbon-dioxide within a year from now and is building one coal power plant per week? And which has no democratic legitimacy, only legitimacy of Tienanmen massacre?

That is (together with usual blaming of all world evils on the USA) what I call hypocrisy.

(Just for the record: I'm all for Kyotto and ecology and conservation and I mentioned it several times in passing on my blog. But to censor US for that one particular mistake and not see that there are actually more funds for ecological improvements coming from the US and the UK than from the rest of the world combined is hypocrisy, pure and simple.)

I don't see how Kyotto has anything to do with the UN Charter and International Law?

Anyone who has taken International Relations 101 has learned that the problem with International Law is that there is no such thing as an International Government which could enforce it, and therefore it is non-binding (except when superpowers decide to act as the enforcers. Case in point - Iraq)

So to answer the "Does it matter?" question - No, it doesn't. The only thing that matters is what the superpower(s) and/or regional powers decide to support.

How is this contrary to my point? My point was exactly that superpower(s) will do whatever they please and selectively apply International Law as it suits their interests. So, to also answer your previous post, the Helsinki Final Act or any other convention does not matter! At least that's my opinion.

No need to get all fired up and anxious to demonstrate your legal education. I am not a lawyer, nor am I attempting to make a legal argument. I'm speaking from a practical point of view. I believe relying on International Law to "save" Kosovo is quite unhelpful. Serbia and its politicians need to become realists and go for the best deal they can get, rather than pie-in-the-sky ideals which will leave them with nothing in the end.

BTW, where to heck on this blog did I demonstrate legal skills? The subject is application of a treaty - should have I answered with chemistry rules? Are you sure you were not referring to belgradelaw?

Ej, mani me se, ok?

JovanZ

What would you have me say?

I posted this blog as a series of open-ended questions - things that occurred to me as interesting... I see that there are quite a few opinions on them. In this respect, I thank everyone who has added to the discussion.

An international accord or treaty or act of any kind is only as valuable as it is respected by its signatories. The Kyoto Protocol which was signed by Clinton and the subseqently George W. Bush-Whacked is a good example.

The fact that Helsinki was signed by the former USSR, the US, many EU states, and Yugoslavia is significant. How it is being used today is the question at hand. In the same sense, if the USSR persisted into the 21st century, I wonder how the White House would drag out the Monroe Docterine to keep the Soviets hemmed in as well...

If asking questions is evidence of a "miserably reasoned attitude" then I am sorry for your perception.

If one cannot ask a question, does it mean that one's position is too weak or arguements to frail to withstand a little blogospheric debate?

I will say just this example --as far as I know cluster bombs are forbiden by Geneva convention but that didn't prevent anybody to trow them on the serbian people with writtings on it --"Run faster" (cause american soldiers poot their signature on them before "mission").
As you can see when Americans kill some people that's not genocide that's an act of mercy ("mercyfull angel" was the name of the bombing or "air campaing" as they were saying)

But I guess serbian children are not the children.

However post of Mr. Farmer is good cause it's good to hear and know everybody's opinion and it created debate that can be usefull.

And I think we can forget about Geneva , UN, Helsinki or any other civilized heritage while America is ruling the world.

Hypocrisy of local patriJots is, as Einstein said on the universe and stupidity, beyond any measure.

Has any proceeding been conducted about that? Have legal issues about particular models of cluster bombs that NATO claimed being in compliance with Geneva Convention been resolved? Have they charged Anton Tus, the commander of air forces at that time? Wait, how come cluster bombs were dropped on civilians if RV PVO (air force) of JNA was forbidded from flying by U.N. sanctions as from very beggining of the conflict? Is "condemnation" in blogosphere sufficient, or some proceeding should still be conducted?

Please elaborate.

Are you referring to the hipocricy in general or just to the patriotic hipocicy? Do you find there is something wrong with patriotism an generale or you rather focused your complain to the hipocricy?

...since it seems that one can maintain civilized dialogue with you. The first issue, of use of illegal weapons against civilian targets, and moreover against targets intended to serve as sources of secondary damage, has been repeatedly reported in both UN sources, Western and Croatian media, as well as in the proceedings of ICTY. To cut the very long story short, let me give you just one particular example which is particularly heinous, since at least one of the several cluster bomb attacks could endanger tens of thousands of people through secondary chemical poison damage. It is described in detail in the following article:

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps21/croatia.html

Please note that the article is written as an official report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which is an organ of the US Department of Health. you can also see *speculations* (which still need proof, so I intentionally haven't mentioned them) about the use of chemical weapons by JNA and BSA/RSA in Bosnia.

The point is clear: the first use (and it is an important term in both strategy and law, as you should know way better than me) of weaponry illegal by international standards and conventions in the 1990s Balkans war was performed by JNA.

On your second point: yes, I do object to hypocrisy in general, of course. However, in this particular region, hypocrisy vis-a-vis some political issues (or even better, clichees) has been systematically enhanced by QUASI-patriotic - or which I call patriJotic, signifying that such quasi-patriots are usually only half-literate, guys who write graffiti "NEDAMO Kosovo" and so on - propaganda, occasionally rising to the level of brain-washing. The examples of such political clichees which have become default truths in quasi-patriotic circles are abound; some examples include statements like: "USA and NATO are responsible for world's evils", "Germany and Vatican caused the disintegration of former Yugoslavia", "Germany is centennial enemy of Serbian people", "USA are the most responsible for global warming/polution/starving children/terrorism/unrest in Ukraine/genocide in Rwanda...", "Western media are thoroughy prejudiced" etc. etc. etc. These are not only self-defeating nonsenses or at best vacuous truisms that they in fact are - they create an insidious poisonous mental climate blocking any real progress. Of course, the same standards are never applied to the local situation; for instance, it is rare to find a person affirming the simple truth that the pollution in Pancevo is waaaay more dangerous to Serbs than whoever signed or didn't signed the Kyoto protocol.

That is what I call patriJotic hypocrisy - and it's despicable in all and every aspects.

1. No JNA soldier has been around for about year and a half, so it couldn't be JNA.
2. No bomb was dropped, since air forces were prohibited in the area for about two years; it could have been some artilery granade, but that's not an illegal weaponry according to Geneva Convention!
3. No proof about a proceeding at ICTY against anyone for such a horrible crime has been provided.
4. Conflict in Krajina was different from other conflicts according to UN, US and other powers that be
5. Conflict in Baznia was different from other conflicts accordiing to the same sources.

WTF bombing in 1999 has in common with the conflicts in Krajina and Bosnia, having been ended in 1995? The revenge to Serbs? What about your high moral grounds, Milan?

Is four years after the conflict permissible to seek revenge as in case of US, but isn't permissible after fourty years as in case of us, in such a highly grounded moral system?

Since when (alleged) wrondoings of someone (Krajina Army) justifies wrongdoings (NATO) against otherone (FR Yugoslavia) in the code of high moral grounds you are applying wholehartedly?

I need to remind you that our host Christ opened thread regarding: 1) Kosovo; 2) Application of the specific treaty - H. Act in narrow sence, or, broadly speaking, all applicable international law on Kosovo case. So how come you are debating Kyoto protocol and environmental issues to prove that:

Why are we not allowed in your presence to debate related bold violations of Geneva Conventions committed by NATO/US on ths thread? Where is the high moral grounds in not allowing us that? Is it for that it was us that suffered, or was it that it was US who commited it?

Comming from someone of such a high moral grounds it's despicable in all and every aspects.

"NEDAMO" could be a specific grammatical use that is still being exploited in Church Slavonic, where opposite meaning of a verb is construed by adding the prefix NE, as is the case in "NEVIDI".

...and how in the world do you wish to return to the topic if you're asking for more examples (btw, even if that wasn't jna using cluster bombs in that example, it was in any case violation of accords on such weapons waaaay before '99).

And, now, it is true that Kyoto has nothing to do with the topic; but it wasn't I who invoked it in the first place (actually, I notice a pattern here - you tend to put the blame to one who responds, not to the initial perpetrator - quite similar to jna/bsa/rsa/...). And in any case, it is quite clear that your discussion and even your "friendly" dialogue with bladerunner about my morality is of absolutely the same relevance to the topic - that is, of NO RELEVANCE.

Finally, your insinuation expressed by

The exchange was a nice piece of example of tactis that "west adorators" were employing in their permanent lack of arguments.

When one points to clear and obvioius hypocricy "the west" uses to reason its' greedy, brutal and ruthless wrongdoings, the "west adorators" will scream outloud with some irrelevant examples of what they find hipocritic. Milan's pathetic outcry about illiterate local Serb patriots and Pancevo pollution against bladerunner's point about use of illegal weapons by NATO against Yugoslavia is qite an example about that. Of course Milan preferred not to respond to my point that war crimes of NATO were more obvioius in other details.

When faced with opposing arguments the "west adorators" will simply ignore them. As Milan did above when faced with:

he just ignored it as in:

So, according to Milan, it doesn't matter he supplied a false evidence that didn't substantiate what he claimed; it neither matters nobody is actually being prosecuted for what he claimed was a crime. It's sufficient that he, CNN and HRT are screaming outloud about "the crime".

So, when faced with arguments they are not able to refute, they just ignore them. Yet, they simultaneously claim to be of high moral grounds.

It's hilarious, since they actially don't fail to see how pathetic and miserable they are.

That's why the debates end with their "mani me se" and "you are stupid".

General public is becoming more and more aware of such an atitude. As in the sayings: "One can cheat all the people some time, and one can cheat some people all the time, but one can't cheat all the people all the time."

Guys, you have learned nothing from history. Your time is runnin' out.

...sorry I didn't understand your church Slavonic - next time translate properly your cryptofascist and illiterate ramblings (try spellchecker next time - it's a fine product of, lo and behold! Western civilization). My sympathies, though, for it's real difficult nowadays to find a good church Slavonic dictionary. BTW, remind me, how does "irelevant blog ramblings of a frustrated quasipatriot" translate into church Slavonic?

P.S. Thanks for the correction, "adorers" was appropriate. Pitty though you failed to maintain civilized manner of the discussion.

...because church was intentionally small, and it's 3 out of 7 of the "errors" you've found. And I've always written the church without cap, the same as I write "party" without caps. In addition, what really is wrong with "try" for it to be in red. In contrast, things like "obvioius hypocricy", "tactis" (whatever it is), "screaming outloud" (neologism?), "atitude", etc. etc. are real spelling errors a la Dan Quayle.

Question: Why haven't you showed my posts and yours compared with use of the same spell checker?

Answer: because on this point of spelling (as well as on other nationalist scoring points of yours) you're a hypocrite.

(And, of course, I guess you'll run now to edit your posts - a similar strategy to "winning the media war" advocated by the milosevic gang)

Nothing, but, absolutely nothing is wrong with that, bladerunner!

By standing for your attitudes, you demonstrated character, not everyone have these days. That's what differs a man from a scum. My respect.

Of course we should occasionally examine the reasoning of our attitudes, and should be ready to hear the reasoning of the opponents, provided they are able to reason their opposition. But one should also be able to see the difference between poor reasoning of one's opponents, and their ill-temper and poor intellect, usually acccompanied with bare rudeness. They can even persist in writing about coine Greek and mandarine Chinese in their pathetic failure to reasong their case.

We shouldn't be harsh with them. If they are pleased with spellchecking our typos, let them do.

One should be pleased seeing another one having discovered what's he is best in.

Milan, Milan, although you showed a great talent, you are apparently disregarding the importance of practice. It's the practice what makes it, not talent!

Enjoy yourself . I don't talk to people like you.

Why are you so halfharted? There are always opportunities to learn! I expect Milan will elaborate his attitudes and demonstrate he is a guy of principles, not just a peroquette with subhuman attitudes.

just don't talk to people who insult someone before even know anything. How Milan M. know whether or not I condemned someone's behaviour for example? Maybe I didn't know about JNA either?Does he know how old I am (cause that would explain some things also). For sure not. Too disapointing for a scientist not to take everything when make conclusion.
in that case it just show his culture.
It seems Milan M. is too much into his role of spitter that there are so many on this blog, so why don't just make him room to show himself off.

...and I have demonstrated principles clearly enough. Your alternative describes local patriJots very well.

local patriot. I live in Serbia not in Bangladesh simple as that. If you use logic it would be much easier for you. But as I said it's in fashion now to be in a role of spitter of everything that is serbian.
And one more thing -- as I could see in UK or USA (where I have familly and visit often) they are very much local patriots. And it's normal. It would be normal for you too if you would know that being a local patriot doesn't mean that you don't like others ( as you actually try to explain by mentioning JNA and Croats) --remember that, but it means that you love yours, your country maybe.
What's wrong with lovin my country?
And why i don't like others if I say that it wasn't human on the start of a 21 century to trow cluster bombs on children. Is it the same local patriotism that Americans shows every 11th september when they gather with candles and photographs of their dead and they condemn Arabs or whoever they think did it?
Being a local patriot is not bad --it means that you love yours not hate other's = in which case you can condemn yours if they are bad to others if you are normal human bein of course -- I have to say simple as that so you can understand.

You had tooooo weak arguments against JovanZ

...the feeling seems to be mutual. I bid you good day.

The part of this whole question which sticks in my craw is the fact that powerful nations will affix their names to a document and not abide by it. One of the first comments to this posting was a Machiavellian quip – he who has the gold makes the rule.

When Helsinki was signed, there were two holders of the gold. Today the US has a monopoly and is not ashamed to use its advantage, pulling in its EU cohorts as well. What this implies, however, is the highest degree of responsibility on the part of the US as the most powerful nation in play. Typically and sadly, the US only feels this responsibility by turns.

I for one would be saddened to see Helsinki rescinded. By overturning this Act, it is an acknowledgement that the rule of law among nations is impossible. The same applies – to bladerunner now – to the Geneva Convention and all of the long-standing international agreements governing the extent of inhumanity in which the world’s nations can indulge.

The fact that these documents are not abided by is not acceptable. But when it happens, the agreements continue to exist and offer people of good conscious a backdrop and context from which to protest. Clearly appealing only to common sense is not on the table.

This is probably more a response to your second question.

And do I agree that it would be more sensible to gain international agreement on rescinding the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 prior to partitioning Serbia rather than simply ignoring it or going against its implicit and explicit terms?

My answer is that I cannot agree with any country which would attempt to draw the borders of another without the explicit, freely determined, and agreed sign-off from the country concerned. In our case, without a mutually beneficial solution which both Belgrade and Pristina can agree to, there will be no solution at all.

This is my opinion for what it is worth….

I suggest that Machiavelli's Princely phrase has been replaced by the more direct and catchy, "might is right." Of course, the economic might goes hand in hand with the military might.

There is no doubt that the US and European states are still committed to the ideals of Helsinki. However, Kosovo is a problem that they seek to sweep away and out of sight. Independence is merely the carpet to hide the problem. They seem happy to turn a blind eye to the wider consequences.

Or, perhaps more to the point, they have deluded themselves by their own rhetoric that they can truely make a "special case" of this and nobody will see it as a precedent. In their eyes it is only a one-off because they do not currently intend to offer the same terms elsewhere. The reality is that most of the world will indeed see this as a precedent, irrespective of what Washington and Brussels spin out in their defence.

A 'just' and 'fair' rule of law amongst nations has never, and will never exist all the time that individual states make major foreign policy decisions based on pleasing their own constituencies. What fairness is there in the system when 5 nations can effectively veto any resolution condemning their or their 'best' friends actions?