Canada in Bosnia, and other multi-nation nations

[tango]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=411126

An interesting topic came up, on another thread, so I'm moving the hijack here ...

We were discussing missing Indigenous children in Canada, Canada's human rights abuses at home while berating China for abuses of the Tibetan (Indigenous) People ... and then about multi-nation countries ... and then Bosnia came up ...

Canada is a Nation of Nations! wink.gif

So are a lot of other countries. Bosnia found out the hard way what that means.

Let me ask a question of everyone. What do you feel is more important: patriotism or nationalism?

My answer is a bit of cop-out, but I can only say that I don't know at this point in my life.

This post has been edited by cybercoma: Yesterday, 10:15 PM

You raise an interesting issue, but I think you've asked the wrong question.

There is no limit to love.

One can love one's country, where we all live together the same but different, and also love one's nation(s) of people.

They aren't always the same, especially not for all of us immigrants. laugh.gif

Country is association by contiguity - living side by side - and nation is genetic and cultural roots.

We don't have to choose between loving our land(s), and loving our people(s). wink.gif

imo

peace

This post has been edited by tango: Yesterday, 11:51 PM

QUOTE (cybercoma @ Apr 17 2009, 11:27 PM) *

Sometimes you do. Bosnia is a good example of that. They were living quite happily as a multiethnic community when the Olympics were in Sarajevo in '82. Look at what happened through the 90s, some of the worst atrocities since WWII.

yup. A colleague and his family were living there ... "We not me but some of ... we killed some of theirs, and then they killed a lot of ours, and then we ... more ... and then we were being bombed by Canadian and British planes. Then we had to leave."

But ... that is not Canada ... we can hope.

Though the navy and infantry were in Lake Erie near Six Nations at one difficult time, and the Brantford request for the army on standby has not yet been resolved.

Bombs?

I sure hope not. mad.gif

But Canada did bomb Bosnian Serbs. Yup.

OLEG

And we allowed mercenarys that were Canadian trained to go their and kill for 75 dollars a head - I worked with one of these nuts in film buisness.... He told me how they would travel though the village getting hopped up on Vodka - and view babies empaled on steaks ....then they would wait on a hill for the unwary convoys to pass - first they would launch a rocket propelled weapon - and finish them off with machine guns --- Leslie made darn near 5000 dollars killing for profit - he was a Serb - that grew up in Canada - You would think our government would have out lawed these types of enterprises.??

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/top-bosnian-serb-war-crimes-fugitive-arrested

In the 1990's Canadian Peacekeepers in Bosnia at time disregarded United Nations orders to stay out of the ethnic cleansing conflict going on in front of their eyes and engaged in a fierce firefight with Serbian Forces to stop the ethnic cleansing going on in front of them, saving countless Muslim and Croat lives in the process.

This much to the United Nations displeasure in which United Nations felt the Dove approach of diplomatic channels should always be used first before taking drastic actions, such as written warnings to stop killing people. Canadian Peacekeepers like most knew that would be too little too late and engaged the enemy over several days contrary to the UN Mandate.

Most will remember Rwanda went through a similar ethnic cleansing when Canadian Peacekeepers notified the UN about the ethnic slaughter of almost a Million men, women and children and the UN ignored Canadian Peacekeepers pleas until it was too late.

Many soldiers including myself as an ex soldier question the United Nations viability as a World Peacekeeping Body, who continually allow atrocities to go on continually over the world, as the Military Hawks as Peacekeepers are told to Roost and just observe while the Killings continue even as I write this story.

Edited April 21, 2009 by tango

[Smallc]

.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

Who was fighting who and why is a simple question.

Croatia and Slovenia split from Yugoslavia. Later, Bosnia split away; however, Bosnia did not have a clear majority ethnic group. The Serbs within Bosnia then decided they wanted their sovereignty. A number of factors, economic being of particular importance, led to the war. NATO got involved because of the atrocity that happened in Srebrenica. Serbian nationalists tried to eradicate Muslim Bosnians (Bosniaks) right before UN peacekeepers. As a peacekeeping unit, the UN troops were not allowed to engage the Serbians, so they were forced to watch as 25000-30000 refugees were rounded up and slaughtered. In order to stop another WWII-like genocide from being carried out, NATO got involved to put an end to the dispute. The Dayton Accords negotiated peace, but some analysts believe it will only last as long as NATO and the UN enforce the accords. Where people were living happily together side-by-side with other ethnicities, Bosnians now are strictly segregated due to nationalist tensions.

That is a way oversimplification of Bosnia because the Croats and Bosniaks were also guilty of genocidal attempts and segregation. The fine details of the situation could fill pages. I think this broad overview, however, gives a good enough rendition for the purposes of casual discussion.

[tango]

In the 1990's Canadian Peacekeepers in Bosnia at time disregarded United Nations orders to stay out of the ethnic cleansing conflict going on in front of their eyes and engaged in a fierce firefight with Serbian Forces to stop the ethnic cleansing going on in front of them, saving countless Muslim and Croat lives in the process.

This much to the United Nations displeasure in which United Nations felt the Dove approach of diplomatic channels should always be used first before taking drastic actions, such as written warnings to stop killing people. Canadian Peacekeepers like most knew that would be too little too late and engaged the enemy over several days contrary to the UN Mandate.

Most will remember Rwanda went through a similar ethnic cleansing when Canadian Peacekeepers notified the UN about the ethnic slaughter of almost a Million men, women and children and the UN ignored Canadian Peacekeepers pleas until it was too late.

Many soldiers including myself as an ex soldier question the United Nations viability as a World Peacekeeping Body, who continually allow atrocities to go on continually over the world, as the Military Hawks as Peacekeepers are told to Roost and just observe while the Killings continue even as I write this story.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/top-bosnian...gitive-arrested

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[cybercoma]

There's a very good reason the UN ignores ethnic conflicts like these. The United Nations does not interfere in domestic struggles. When a state consists of multiple nations (ethnic/cultural nations), it is up to the state, or the nations through state institutions, to solve their own problems. By interfering with domestic disputes, the UN subverts state sovereignty which strictly goes against the UN raison d'etre. The issue is difficult because genocide and ethnic cleansing are horrible atrocities, this goes without saying. Separating warring nations within a state, however, does not bring lasting peace. They may agree to cease fire for the time being, but without a redrawing of borders or cultural assimilation many feel as though it's only a matter of time before the situation explodes again. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not as simple as "war bad, peace good". Sometimes nations need to be allowed to work out their differences because intervention creates unresolved issues.

[Army Guy]

Many soldiers including myself as an ex soldier question the United Nations viability as a World Peacekeeping Body, who continually allow atrocities to go on continually over the world, as the Military Hawks as Peacekeepers are told to Roost and just observe while the Killings continue even as I write this story.

Most soldiers that have done a United Nations tour will express the same feelings, but then again this has been fact for some time now, the United Nations although a great organization, just does not have the power or influence to get involved in military operations. Yes there are some shinny examples of sucess, but there is more failures...

Bosina was a perfect example of a UN failure in all aspects....the whole experience under UN has left many Canadian soldiers with a bad taste in thier mouths..

but I love Canada because of what it is....because of where we are going. We are moving towards a tolerant society where people can live together here and build better lives no matter who they are. It's really quite wonderful...in my eyes, anyway. I don't see it turning into Bosnia.

This has been debated on many levels before, and it all comes down to reality, the whole Bosina thing could easily happen here in Canada...the breaking up of a country almost never goes well, combine that with some bad fellings from the past, a few incidents of violence and poof....it grows very repidly until it spins out of control....death and revenge are powerful motivators and it takes no time to convert fun loving people, neibours, family, into carring out some of the evil things seen in Bosina and the whole Yugo conflict. you may say not me....bullshit...seeing your family, or friends murdered, raped, etc will convert anyone into doing the same...

They may agree to cease fire for the time being, but without a redrawing of borders or cultural assimilation many feel as though it's only a matter of time before the situation explodes again. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not as simple as "war bad, peace good". Sometimes nations need to be allowed to work out their differences because intervention creates unresolved issues.

I disagree, if military intervention had not taken place, i think the entire yugo conflict would still be a problem...once the first blood is shed it is difficult to stop the fighting until a organization such as NATO steps in and forcefully tells them to stop, or face NATO forces in combat...once a conflict gets to far gone, a superior threat of violence is the only thing that will make the blood shed stop....NATO did this with great effect.

The conflict in bosina near the end, was so complicated that just 5 km down the road, there was a completly differnet war going on, in some cases Muslim fighting muslim, serb fighting bosinan serb etc etc ....each little conflict required a completely different approach...but one element was universal....everyone stopped fighting when superior force and the will to use it was displayed...the fact that there is still NATO troops in Yugo and will be for years to come is testimony that it will take generations for those wounds to heal and until then a larger military force is required to keep them apart..

[Wilber]

In the 1990's Canadian Peacekeepers in Bosnia at time disregarded United Nations orders to stay out of the ethnic cleansing conflict going on in front of their eyes and engaged in a fierce firefight with Serbian Forces to stop the ethnic cleansing going on in front of them, saving countless Muslim and Croat lives in the process.

At Medoc I believe the Canadians were defending Serbs from Croatians. A realy mixed up place.

[cybercoma]

The conflict in bosina near the end, was so complicated that just 5 km down the road, there was a completly differnet war going on, in some cases Muslim fighting muslim, serb fighting bosinan serb etc etc ....each little conflict required a completely different approach...but one element was universal....everyone stopped fighting when superior force and the will to use it was displayed...the fact that there is still NATO troops in Yugo and will be for years to come is testimony that it will take generations for those wounds to heal and until then a larger military force is required to keep them apart..

This illustrates my point that NATO intervention has created unresolved differences and forced nations that are at odds with each other to co-habitate the same state. Some analysts feel NATO is the only reason there is peace. As soon as NATO leaves it will explode again. Does that mean there should be a permanent NATO occupation? Conflict is a terrible thing, but I also don't think it's right that NATO needs to continuously stand guard to avoid conflict. It may be an unfortunate reality that war is the only means to a solution in this case.

[Army Guy]

This illustrates my point that NATO intervention has created unresolved differences and forced nations that are at odds with each other to co-habitate the same state. Some analysts feel NATO is the only reason there is peace. As soon as NATO leaves it will explode again. Does that mean there should be a permanent NATO occupation? Conflict is a terrible thing, but I also don't think it's right that NATO needs to continuously stand guard to avoid conflict. It may be an unfortunate reality that war is the only means to a solution in this case

While it is true , and it illustrates your piont, but at what cost do we allow these conflicts to go on. There was a fear that the conflict could spill into europe or drag other nations into it....

You don't have to be an analyst to know that NATO presence is what made the conflict stop. and yes if NATO did pull out there would be some form of conflict shortly after...but one would have to ask is , is it worth it....i'd say yes

I don't think terriable is a strong enough word. death and destruction erodes everymans sense of humanity until nothing is left except absolute pain and misery....i think we have a responsability to make sure it does not happen.

[cybercoma]

I think we are obligated to promote diplomacy and prevent these conflicts. I'm just not sure it's going to do any good over there by stepping in and keeping them apart (we'll eventually have to leave, ending up back at square one). I guess the global approach would see them become deeply integrated economically, which is an incentive to remain peaceful with one another. If their economies are dependent upon trade with each other, they're less likely to go to war. Fierce nationalism is a barrier to that kind of integration though. Until they get back to integrating, nothing will ensure peace. Of course, how do you reintegrate with the people that tried to annihilate your nation? Probably not possible. Maybe with sovereignty over their own nation-states, they could become co-operative partners with one another internationally. Who knows? It's a hugely complex problem that I'm certainly not capable of solving within the scope of a message board conversation.

Edited April 19, 2009 by cybercoma

[Army Guy]

I think we are obligated to promote diplomacy and prevent these conflicts.

I fully agree, i also think that the western world has failed miserable at doing that. Rwanda is a perfect example of that, i think they are still debating that whole conflict and have yet to come up with a solution...there will always be a time when military intervention is needed in order to save lives...i know it sounds like a huge contradiction, but the Yugo conflict under lines that...

I guess the global approach would see them become deeply integrated economically, which is an incentive to remain peaceful with one another. If their economies are dependent upon trade with each other, they're less likely to go to war.

Thats what makes the whole Bosina thing so complicated, before and after the war most communities where completely mixed with serb, croat, and muslim living next to each other, even sharing in the same bussiness, families....in other parts of Yugo the split was and is much more split on race lines...such as what is known today as Serbia, or Croatia....mostly due to the cleansing that was done...

Once the killing started it was continued by revenge ...which is why i think it would have still be ongoing if NATO had not intervened....history of this area is full of them not getting along....and while it would be nice for everyone to play nice sometimes we need a force to keep the peace...

can you imagine what North America would look like without say a police force, or a group to enforce the laws...it would not be long before violence broke out...perhaps i'm jaded...but it is mans nature to fight, and chase power, and the only ones that suffer are inocent people just trying to live thier lives...

[cybercoma]

The integrated multicultural community of Bosnia is what concerns me for Canada. The 1982 Olympics in Sarajevo put their multiculturalism on display as something they were proud of. Milosevic destroyed that when he ramped up fierce Serbian nationalism. Canada, hopefully, will never go through the kind of market changes that Bosnia went through in the 90s, which precipitated the conflict. But, it worries me that at the drop of the dime a proud multicultural community could be turned on one another and resort to the depravity of genocide.

I guess the whole situation Bosnia, even though most people don't think about it anymore, makes me worry about the shaky relationship we have with Quebec. Things are great now, with Quebec co-operating in federal politics, but the election of the Bloc Quebecois, a nationalist party, is worrisome to me. What happens if diplomacy fails? What happens if a prime minister stands up to the BQ for the benefit of the rest of Canada? There is already a feeling amongst some Canadians that Quebec holds the country hostage to their demands.

Some journalists, recently, have suggested that maybe the rest of Canada needs to seriously consider letting Quebec go. Perhaps they are not wrong. In order to resolve the ongoing struggle between Quebec and Canada, perhaps they do need to be afforded their sovereignty. A sovereign Quebec could work as a partner with Canada, an equal to the rest of Canada rather than just another province. And why not? They have their own language, culture, laws (civil code) and flag. They even call their provinical government the National Assembly, as though they were sovereign. I believe Canadians really need to reflect on whether or not Quebec sovereignty would truly tear the country apart, or if it would be the very thing that allows all of us to finally move forward and put the struggles of the past behind us.

[Army Guy]

Some journalists, recently, have suggested that maybe the rest of Canada needs to seriously consider letting Quebec go. Perhaps they are not wrong. In order to resolve the ongoing struggle between Quebec and Canada, perhaps they do need to be afforded their sovereignty. A sovereign Quebec could work as a partner with Canada, an equal to the rest of Canada rather than just another province. And why not? They have their own language, culture, laws (civil code) and flag. They even call their provinical government the National Assembly, as though they were sovereign. I believe Canadians really need to reflect on whether or not Quebec sovereignty would truly tear the country apart, or if it would be the very thing that allows all of us to finally move forward and put the struggles of the past behind us.

I disagree, i think that parilment should pass new laws and amend the constitution so that separating is not an opition for any province or group, or what have you. Much like what the US have.

Quebec is not the only province that has discussed separation, i think that if Quebec is let go it would cascade into something similar as Yugo...once the country is sliced up every group or party with a cause will want a piece....and when disagreements or greed take hold violence will break out....nobody is imune to what happened in yugo....

[cybercoma]

I believe that just brings into question whether we should be a single state to begin with.

[tango]

I think Harper did the right thing for Canada when he did this:

The House of Commons has overwhelmingly passed a motion recognizing Québécois as a nation within Canada.

Conservatives, most Liberal MPs, the NDP and the Bloc voted 266 to 16 in support of the controversial motion, which earlier in the day had prompted the resignation of Michael Chong as intergovernmental affairs minister.

Stephen Harper votes for a motion recognizing Québécois as a nation in Canada. Stephen Harper votes for a motion recognizing Québécois as a nation in Canada.

(CBC)

Fifteen Liberal MPs voted against the motion, including Liberal leadership candidates Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe, along with Independent MP Garth Turner.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had introduced the surprise motion on Nov. 22, raising the ante on a Bloc Québécois motion that sought to declare Quebecers a nation without reference to Canada.

The motion states: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."

The prime minister has said he is using the word nation in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense.

"I think tonight was an historic night," Harper said after the vote. "Canadians across the country said 'yes' to Quebec, 'yes' to Quebecers, and Quebecers said 'yes' to Canada.

I don't usually have much good to say about Harper, but I think this surprising move has proved very successful, and may help us prevent such tragedies as Bosnia and other mulit-nation conflicts.

I see it as a very constructive move to recognize social/cultural Nations of people within the Nation State of Canada, perhaps especially our founding Nations. The Quebecois are the first, but logically Indigenous Nations should be accorded the same status as (founding) nations of people, though not necessarily geographically defined.

There is a complication though: In English, the document clearly identifies the Quebecois as a Nation of people. The French version, however, implies a geographic Nation. This is potentially problematic in the future, as Indigenous Nations have claim to large areas of Quebec too, and do not take kindly to the suggestion that Canada or Quebec can make such decisions about partitioning their land. Another issue is the status of non-francophone Quebecers - not 'pure laine' - do they belong to the Quebecois Nation? Some say 'yes we are', some say 'no you're not'.

For the moment, however, this recognition of a Nation of people within Canada seems to have created a kind of 'peace accord' with Quebecers.

(I've edited the title a bit to reflect the whole discourse here.)

It is interesting to note that Canada has three legal traditions: The French Civil Code, English Common Law and Aboriginal Law are all valid in Canada. One interesting caveat in this regard: There is a movement afoot to acknowledge the traditional Indigenous Nations of Canada - also founding Nations of Canada, imo - including acknowledgment of their traditional territories, which include most to all of Canada, of course. Surprisingly (to me at least), this initiative comes from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, aligned with the Harper Tories (though it's not clear where Harper stands), and opposing the Assembly of First Nations.

Traditional Indigenous territories have been mapped by the feds, though not perfectly, following Constitutional talks in the '80's. The suggestion is that all Indigenous people be aligned with their Nation, regardless of whether they live on or off reserve. The legal reality is that all of the Treaties that allow us to live on Indigenous land also reserve for them the right to sustain themselves from that land. In modern terms, this means they have a right to "A say in development and a share in revenues" from the land.

In reality, they have to fight our local, provincial and federal governments in court to get them to accede to these legal rights, and are making considerable progress of late in doing so. The latest development is occurring in Ontario, where Brantford sought a court injunction to stop Six Nations from blockading developments. Recognizing Six Nations existing rights on the land and Supreme Court Case Law (url=http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/july/2008ONCA0534.pdf]Frontenac 2008; See para 48[/url], the Judge has not granted the injunction to Brantford but instead, ordered the City of Brantford and the Province of Ontario to consult with Six Nations and accommodate their rights on the land in a written agreement, within parameters already defined by the Supreme Court. The three parties to these talks are to report back to the court on May 19.

Indigenous Nations are not the geographic nations who were forced onto 'reserves', but in fact are also Nations of people integrated among us, founding Nations of Canada. Despite some ill-intentioned efforts to define Indigenous Peoples out of existence, the legal reality is that that can never happen: International law is clear that Aboriginal Rights cannot be extinguished. The UN has emphasized that Canadian agreements that include such wording (most recently Tsawassan) are simply not legal.

Thus, there are changes in the works for Canada to correct historical errors in respecting the founding peoples of Canada, including Quebecois and Indigenous Nations as well as British roots. I think these are generally positive developments for Canada though not without some perils.

Edited April 21, 2009 by tango

[Borg]

Can multi-nation countries like Canada live peacefully together?

To answer the question - It is a nice thought, but no they cannot - sooner or later one will attempt to rise to the top. Either by force or what will eventually lead to force.

The strong will rule.

Not all people are open to, or willing to negotiate.

To believe otherwise is naive - there are too many examples in the world that prove this.

Borg

Edited April 21, 2009 by Borg

[cybercoma]

jbg pointed out that quote from Stephen Harper in the other thread, "Canada works in practice but not in theory".

[Machjo]

As far as I'm concerned, there is no hard and fast rule as to whether a multi-nation state can succeed. I think it depends on how willing the participants are to integrate. In Indonesia, with over 300 ethnic groups, there is surprisingly little tension considering how many ethnic groups we're dealing with.

One issue is our inability to settle our differences. A simple example is the following mixed-language though not bilingual (i.e., it uses both English and French, but neither is necessarily a translation of the other) video, funded at least in part by the National Film Board of Canada in 1974:

http://www.vigile.net/Speak-White,9775

Though it is old, it is still presented on many sovereigntist websites today. That's where I'd found it. No, I'm not necessarily a sovereigntist myself. But how can we engage the sovereigntist movement without first understanding it?

If you look at that video, you'll see how it promotes certain ethnic sterotypes of Anglos as racist. It's titled 'Speak White', clearly provocative even in 1974, or so I'd imagine, when it was created. 'Speak white' would have a strong connotation as it comes from an expression used by certain Anglos in Quebec when addressed in French, not only at the time the video was released, but even today.

One problem though is that many sovereigntists are not functional in English. So while they see such videos stereotyping Anglos as racists, and comparing them to Nazis and KKK members (as you'll see in the video), and presenting them as arrogant classists treating francophones as 'the niggers of America' (a term sometimes used, though less often now than before since Quebec has developed much since the Quiet Revolution, by Quebecers in an ironic sense to emphasize their perceived marginalization in Canadian society as was the case with blacks in the US), they have little real contact with English-speakers unless those English-speakers happen to know French. Even the internet can't bridge that gap.

You might also want to see the following videos of Patrick Bourgeois:

in them, he talks about 'Quebec Bashing'. It would seem that he knows English well himself, based on how eruditely he has translated select passages from the English-language media. For the most part, he quotes negative stereotypes about Quebec, from journalists, TV reporters, TV interviewees, letters to the editors, etc. His selection mainly consists of quotes that are highly ethnicist and offensive to Quebecers, portraying them as racists, backwards, etc. He then laughs them off along with the audience (many of whom might not know English), and then goes on to show how the same quotes could just as easily apply to the Anglos.

In one example specimen that portrays Quebec as anti-semite and referring to Jaques Parizeau's comments, though he doesn't defend Parizeau, he does point out two things:

1. That Parizeau is but one person and should not reflect on all sovereigntists. and

2. How it was Canada and not Quebec that had turned away many Jews from Germany prior to the Second World War, many of whom had no choice but to return to Germany.

Now how can we break down these kinds of stereotypes on both sides when we don't even have a common language? Only about 15% of Canadians know both languages, and we're all busy with our lives too, so can't be translating everything between the two languages, now can we?

So how do we ensure that monolingual Quebecers can in fact get amore balanced view of English Canada, and vice versa?

Just visit Quebec internet forums. Many of them, especially the sovereigntist ones, comprise mostly monolinguals for all intents and purposes.

And the same applies for the most part in English-language forums. There is but minimal exchange of information on either side. How to break that barrier?