Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (85167)	8/10/2000 12:02:29 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

You have touched on a couple of interesting points, Dan. One is that so-called "ethnic conflicts" are often not spontaneous at all, not fueled by "age-old hatreds," etc., etc., but deliberately fomented by the powers-that-be, for political reasons. Rwanda is a perfect case in point. Although the "ruling class" was Tutsi (cattle-herding nomads who had migrated from the Sudan and Ethiopia in the 17th century), ordinary Tutsis and Hutus had lived together, intermarried, and spoken the same language for years. When the Belgians came along, they attempted to sharpen the division between Hutus and Tutsis, which they did by issuing ethnic identity cards and by ostentatiously favoring the (more European-looking) Tutsis. And the 1994 genocide was incited by MDR "Hutu Power" politicians (and was aimed at moderate Hutus as well as ethnic Tutsis). In fact, many of the Hutus who participated in the slaughter reportedly did so only because they had been told they would be hacked to death themselves if they refused to participate. Two: "Sanctity of borders and non-intervention in 'internal' conflicts gives the established states way more legitimacy than they deserve, in many cases." Of course. But international law is ambiguous on this point. (Or should I say, ambivalent?) On the one hand, the principles of non-interference and of sanctity of borders have been elevated to an extraordinary degree. On the other, there is the Genocide Convention, according to which signatories are OBLIGED to intervene, if a genocide is taking place. In the case of the Kosovo intervention, all sorts of incompatible principles were scrambled up together. For example, NATO declared not only its intention to stop a genocide, but also to preserve the "territorial integrity" of Yugoslavia. How could ANY sane person have thought that once the Serbs were driven out, the Albanians would consent to remain within Yugoslavia (albeit with "expanded autonomy")? Irresponsible!