Re: In the interests of peace, please read, comment, and forward widely.
You're right - this post certainly doesn't belong here. And, frankly, I now wonder about the credibility of your work in global modeling. Simple-minded?! "Douglas P. Wilson" wrote: > Briefly, what I'm suggesting is that a very different ultimatum should > be given to the Serbs: Stop Killing or We Recognize Kosovo as > Independent. > Seems to me that's pretty close to the present deal: We recognize the right of Kosovo to be an autonomous region, the Kosovars agree and now the Serbs must stop killing - or else! > > It is a matter of principle: Nations do NOT shell their own county -- > so if the Serbs continue shelling Kosovo villages it PROVES that Kosovo > is NOT a part of Yugoslavia, and the world community should therefore > recognize Kosovo. > A matter of principle? Whose principle? Civil war is hardly uncommon. Bob -- ___ http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
Re: In the interests of peace, please read, comment, and forward widely.
Bob McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're right - this post certainly doesn't belong here. ... Well I've read a lot of somewhat off-topic material on this list, so I think it's reasonable to ask for a little tolerance for mine. I did ask: "In this time of crisis, I hope you will forgive me for posting here", and I still hope you will. >...And, frankly, I now > wonder about the credibility of your work in global modeling. Simple-minded?! Well I have taken a risk by writing about something outside my field of expertise, and if I've committed some well-known fallacy or silly mistake, then you may well think badly of me, perhaps doubting I even have a field of expertise. That's a risk I chose to take, and I don't regret it. Nobody else seems to have any new ideas about the Kosovo situation, and I just can't sit by and let things get worse without at least trying to think up something that might work. > > Briefly, what I'm suggesting is that a very different ultimatum should > > be given to the Serbs: Stop Killing or We Recognize Kosovo as > > Independent. > > > Seems to me that's pretty close to the present deal: We recognize the right of > Kosovo to be an autonomous region, the Kosovars agree and now the Serbs must > stop killing - or else! I was not talking about recognizing the right of Kosovo to be an autonomous region, I was talking about full diplomatic recognition of Kosovo as an independent country -- that's why I wrote about an exchange of ambassadors and a seat on the UN. That is something Mr. Milosevic does not want to happen. To prevent it, I think he would be willing to call off the army and sign the agreement. Yes, perhaps air-strikes on Serbia would accomplish the same thing, but they would also probably kill people, which would increase the amount of hatred in a region already saturated with it. What I propose is non-violent, and I think that's important. International diplomacy is really not my field, but from what I know of it there are often subtle distinctions which make a world of difference. What you called "simple-minded" is something I think of as "subtle". > > It is a matter of principle: Nations do NOT shell their own country -- > > A matter of principle? Whose principle? Civil war is hardly uncommon. It is a principle I am proposing. If it could become accepted, then this form of ultimatum could be used to make civil war uncommon. Perhaps it would help if I quote here part of a message sent in response to a partisan of Serbia, who also objected to this point and mentioned several counterexamples. > > > It is a matter of principle: Nations do NOT shell their own country -- > > I insist, they don't -- this is a matter of principle with me. Shelling > is indiscriminate and kills innocent civilians -- no country would ever > do that. Your apparent counter-examples notwithstanding. > > > As A matter of fact they do, in Indonesia > > nearly 200,000 have been killed in recent times > > I take this as either the criminal act of disobediant soldiers, OR as > evidence that the place shelled is actually a foreign country. Indonesian > brutality in East Timor, for example, proves what the East Timorese > have been saying all along -- they are not part of Indonesia. > > > The Turks have killed 35,000 this year within their borders, > > Kurds, mostly. Yes. Again, it's either disobediant soldiers (unlikely, > but a possible face-saving interpretation for the Turkish government), OR > it is proof of what the Kurds have been saying all along, that they do > not belong to Turkey. > > > the Chinese have killed thousands in Tibet (proclaimed chinese territory) > > Ditto, ditto, ditto -- yes, Tibet is not part of China, and the deaths > of thousands proves that, but we should also give the Chinese government > a face-saving way to back out of Tibet, if we can think of one. I think people sometimes have to come up with new principles to cover situtations like this, and I'm quite happy to advocate this one. Indeed, I think there is a moral imperative to come up with new ideas and new principles in a crisis like this. I'm sorry if posting my message to this list has cost me some good will, but I just had to do it -- I had to at least make the attempt to interest people in a non-violent solution. Like all of us, I have my blind spots, and I may well have wasted your time on a silly idea, I just don't know. If so, I'm sorry. I honestly thought it worth posting. I still think it was -- but what about the rest of you, the other people on this list? I welcome your comments, even the one's that sting a bit. dpw Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html
FW: Re: In the interests of peace...
"Douglas P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Like all of us, I have my blind spots, and I may well have wasted your >time on a silly idea, I just don't know. If so, I'm sorry. I honestly >thought it worth posting. I still think it was -- but what about the >rest of you, the other people on this list? I welcome your comments, >even the one's that sting a bit. I think it's a damn good idea, and I don't see anything simpleminded about it at all. It is certainly a bit off topic for this group, but I'm prepared to tolerate a brief digression. I wouldn't want to see it turn into a month long debate, though. My only reticence about it is I feel it's probably too late to be used effectively in Kosovo, as at this point it would just look like NATO backing up another step and drawing another line in the sand after the Serbs have stepped over the twenty or so drawn before. As a principle for dealing with military responses to national aspirations, I think it has great merit, though I would suggest that many nations might fear that the support of it would be against the interests of their own territorial integrity. However, it is an idea whose time has really come. The UN and other treaty organizations such as NATO have done a lot in the last 50 years to end wars between sovereign nations, so now most mass violence is confined to within the boundaries of states. Up til now, the international community has been reluctant to step in to `internal' affairs, but in the last few years, without major internation conflicts to command attention, the desire is growing to develop a mechanism whereby the security of groups under persecution by their state can be sanctioned by the world community. Your proposal offers such a mechanism. Knowing how world consensus proceeds, I expect it would take several years for this concept to gain acceptance, but I suspect it would find some champions immediately. We in Canada, with our own minority perennially considering devolution, have come, I think, to accept that the only mature way to handle this issue is by democratic choice, negotiation and compromise. I see it as part of the continual advancement of the "goalposts" of civilized behaviour. As peace becomes more widespread in the world, expectations of peaceful behaviour become stronger. -Pete Vincent
Re: FW: Re: In the interests of peace...
Recognizing independence unqualified is not a good idea - though you probably are aware of this, it can be the start of wars rather than the end. The hasty recognition of Croatia by Germany and then the West, without any guarantees of minority rights, started the whole damn yugoslav war. Whether the aim is to blackmail a bully or not, this is important. Eva > > I think it's a damn good idea, and I don't see anything simpleminded > about it at all. It is certainly a bit off topic for this group, but > I'm prepared to tolerate a brief digression. I wouldn't want to see > it turn into a month long debate, though. My only reticence about it > is I feel it's probably too late to be used effectively in Kosovo, > as at this point it would just look like NATO backing up another > step and drawing another line in the sand after the Serbs have stepped > over the twenty or so drawn before. As a principle for dealing with > military responses to national aspirations, I think it has great merit, > though I would suggest that many nations might fear that the support > of it would be against the interests of their own territorial > integrity. However, it is an idea whose time has really come. > The UN and other treaty organizations such as NATO have done a lot > in the last 50 years to end wars between sovereign nations, so now > most mass violence is confined to within the boundaries of states. > Up til now, the international community has been reluctant to > step in to `internal' affairs, but in the last few years, without > major internation conflicts to command attention, the desire is growing > to develop a mechanism whereby the security of groups under persecution > by their state can be sanctioned by the world community. Your proposal > offers such a mechanism. > > Knowing how world consensus proceeds, I expect it would take several > years for this concept to gain acceptance, but I suspect it would > find some champions immediately. We in Canada, with our own minority > perennially considering devolution, have come, I think, to accept > that the only mature way to handle this issue is by democratic > choice, negotiation and compromise. I see it as part of the continual > advancement of the "goalposts" of civilized behaviour. As peace > becomes more widespread in the world, expectations of peaceful > behaviour become stronger. > -Pete Vincent > >
Re: Re: In the interests of peace...
Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm prepared to tolerate a brief digression. I wouldn't want to see > it turn into a month long debate, though. ... I agree with that. I'm only doing this because of the immediate crisis situation. > ... My only reticence about it > is I feel it's probably too late to be used effectively in Kosovo, > as at this point it would just look like NATO backing up another > step and drawing another line in the sand after the Serbs have stepped > over the twenty or so drawn before. That's a very good point. It would have to be handled carefully, perhaps by admitting a strong reluctance to using military action -- this ultimatum would have the advantage that it will be very easy to implement the threatened action -- recognizing Kosovo -- much easier than anything military. > ... As a principle for dealing with > military responses to national aspirations, I think it has great merit, > though I would suggest that many nations might fear that the support > of it would be against the interests of their own territorial > integrity. ... That's another good point, and a potential problem, especially as it has an obvious application to Russian in Chechnya and for China in Tibet. Both Russia and China have a veto on the UN Security Council, so that could be a big problem. But I think it's worth trying in other venues first, in an effort to get the principle accepted. I think the key would be getting it accepted by the community of international law experts, so I'm trying to sign up for one of their mailing lists where I might be able to argue for it. > Knowing how world consensus proceeds, I expect it would take several > years for this concept to gain acceptance, but I suspect it would > find some champions immediately. ... I'd like to think that Canada could accept the principle and argue for it internationally, but I'm afraid that even the remotest possibility of it applying to Quebec would be enough to scare off Canadian politicians. I hope that Canada would never consider military action against Quebec, but some politicians may like to hold that option in reserve or for use as a threat. So I think that this is more likely to appeal to nations which have no minority enclaves, Scandinavian countries, perhaps. Thanks very much for your comments, Pete. You've done wonders for my morale. dpw Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html
response from Worldwatch V.P. re population
An open reply to Dick Bell:
About a month ago I posted an article by Lester Brown of Worldwatch, which made no
mention of population in an optimistic view towards the future. Dick Bell, VP of
Communications responded with this short note. I assume his dual usages of
"stabilizing population growth" (ZPG's recent contrivance to circumvent 'stopping
growth' -'Zero' *is* the first word of their name) and "stabilizing population"
(means something!) is as unintentional as he claims was the ommision of population
from the original article!
Also, I didn't claim there was a "lack of focus on population in the article", as Mr.
Bell indicates. I said there was "no mention" of the subject! Big difference, IMO.
I hereby apply to do critical reading for Worldwatch to help provide maximum clarity
and precision to their communications. Perhaps there is an editorial opening. ("We
appreciate having readers like you who are paying careful attention to what we
write.")
Steve Kurtz
> *
> Steve,
>
> I am responding to your comments about the importance of keeping population
> growth in the forefront of environmental planning. Worldwatch has focused on the
> critical importance of stabilizing population growth from its earliest days. In
> just a few weeks, we will be publishing a book with W.W.Norton, "Beyond Malthus:
> 19 Dimensions of the Population Challenge," that expands on a paper we did last
> fall on this topic. In both the paper and the book, we argue forcefully for the
> importance of stabilizing population as soon as possible by voluntary means,
> before famine and disease do their tragic work instead. We are especially
> concerned about the impact of HIV/AIDS, which will be bringing a number of
> southern African countries to zero population growth within the next few years
> because of rising death rates.
>
> The lack of focus on population in the article your responded to was not
> intended to slight or ignore the problem. The focus in this article was on the
> existing evidence that a change might be afoot. You are right that such change
> canot take place without a concomitant change in population growth as well.
> *
>
> We appreciate having readers like you who are paying careful attention to what
> we write.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Dick Bell
>
>
> Dick Bell
> Vice President for Communications
> Worldwatch Institute
> 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: 202-452-1992x537
> Fax: 202-296-7365
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web: http://www.worldwatch.org
>
*
> Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:12:49 -0500
> Steve Kurtz ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> This sound nice, but no mention is made of the NET ADDITION of over 7
> million humans per MONTH to earth's population. Attitides and awareness
> must include the responsibilities and effects of procreation if the below
> perceptions are to become meaningfully realized.
>
> Steve Kurtz
> --
> February 25, 1999
>
> WORLD MAY BE ON EDGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVOLUTION
>
> As we approach the new millennium, there are growing signs that the world
> may be
> on the edge of an environmental revolution comparable to the political
> revolution that swept Eastern Europe, reports Lester Brown, president of
> the
> Worldwatch Institute, in an article in the March/April issue of World
> Watch. The
> social revolution in Eastern Europe led to a restructuring of the region's
> political systems. This global revolution could lead to an environmentally
> driven restructuring of the global economy.
(snip)
--
"To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being
paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy,
in our age, can still do for those who study it."
Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy"
Re: In the interests of peace, please read, comment, and forward widely.
>Briefly, what I'm suggesting is that a very different ultimatum should >be given to the Serbs: Stop Killing or We Recognize Kosovo as >Independent. > >It is a matter of principle: Nations do NOT shell their own county -- >so if the Serbs continue shelling Kosovo villages it PROVES that Kosovo >is NOT a part of Yugoslavia, and the world community should therefore >recognize Kosovo. There are ever so many examples of nations shelling their own country, and besides, as the Serbs see it, they're shelling ethnic Albanians, not their own country. They see it as cleansing their country in much the same manner as they cleansed Bosnia. They are, of course, not alone in this. In Rwanda, the Hutus cleansed Tutsis; in Ireland, the pro-Brit Protestants cleansed Irish Catholics; In Iraq, the Iraquis cleansed Kurds; in Indian, the Hindus cleansed Moslems (and v.v.); in Turkey, the Turks cleansed Armenians; the Germans cleansed Jews throughout Europe; Europeans cleansed the Indians of the New World; etc. etc. etc. It's a very old and very widespread game which won't change until we've undergone one more step in evolution -- from the human to the angelic. There are a couple of other points that need to be made. One is that Kosovo is the latest stage in the disintegration of Yugoslavia, which used to pretend to be a country, but which was never really together except under the iron hand of Tito. During the past decade or so Yugoslavia has lost Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and, for all practical purposes, Bosnia. Now Kosovo threatens to go, leaving only Serbia itself (and perhaps Montenegro, though I'm a little hazy here). Think of it as being a little like Canada if Quebec went, then British Columbia, then Alberta, etc. The other point is that I suspect there is a larger geopolitical game at work in all this - it's not only the dirty old Serbs against defenceless ethnic Albanian women and children. The Russians have long been allies of the Serbs, and I suspect they are involved somewhere in the background. To what purpose? I don't really know, but I would speculate that at least some powerful or potentially powerful Russians are looking for an excuse to get back into the arms race. Russia was a force to be reckoned with during the Cold. The arms race made the country work far better than anything that has come along. You need an enemy to convince your people to be in an arms race. How better to acquire an enemy than to have a full scale war on your borders -- a war between NATO (really the US) and the poor little Serbs. I recognize that this is pure speculation, but might it not be so? Ed Weick
Re: response from Worldwatch V.P. re population
I'd like to see Mr. Bell's other phrases ("stabilizing population" and
"changes in population growth") also made a little more specific. Shall
we "stabilize population" at 12 billion or "change population growth" by
reducing the exponential growth rate to 1%/year? Hopefully Worldwatch
will recognize that the statistics it publishes demand more than that.
Re: In the interests of peace...
Pax vobiscum. What do Jay Hanson, Thomas Lunde and Douglas P. Wilson have in common? For a clue visit: http://www.dynamist.com/ "Douglas P. Wilson" wrote: > Thanks very much for your comments, Pete. You've done wonders for my > morale. > Good! And I liked your social technology page. Bob -- ___ http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
FW: Re: In the interests of peace...
Bob McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Pax vobiscum. > >What do Jay Hanson, Thomas Lunde and Douglas P. Wilson have in common? > The common sense to realize that things can't go on the way they're going, and we can either choose our new vision of the future, or have it forced upon us by events? >For a clue visit: > >http://www.dynamist.com/ Sorry, I see nothing there but a new skin for the old ceremony. >"Douglas P. Wilson" wrote: > >> Thanks very much for your comments, Pete. You've done wonders for my >> morale. >> > >Good! And I liked your social technology page. > >Bob et moi aussi. -Pete Vincent
