|
|
Post by vinjak on Mar 2, 2009 18:35:36 GMT -5
how come this does not apply to the Serbs in BiH ?
The right of self-determination is the collective right of peoples to determine their own future free of any outside interference or coercion. It includes the right to determine their political status and to freely pursue their economic, social, spiritual and cultural development.
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressly provide that "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
In the exercise of that right, the peoples have wide latitude of choice. At one end, they can demand and pursue within the nation state more political power, active participation in the decision making and administration of government affairs, equitable redistribution of economic benefits, and appropriate ways of preserving and protecting their culture and way of life. On the other end, they have also the right to organize their own sovereign and independent government.
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Mar 2, 2009 18:48:08 GMT -5
how come this does not apply to the Serbs in BiH ? Because Serbs in BiH don’t respect this map:  instead they want Srebrenica and other parts of BiH from which they have ethnically cleansed non-Serbs in order to create greater Serbia. You cant expect us to award genocide by giving away Srebrenica or any other part of BiH from which non-serbs have been ethnically cleansed. In fact all members of UN have an obligation to punish and minimize the effects of aggression and genocide. |
|
|
|
Post by boscrocop on Mar 2, 2009 18:51:44 GMT -5
Answer: Why do neither the Hungarians in Vojvodina nor the Muslims of Raska have this right?    If you want to have some theoretical discussion about why RS is not part of Serbia atm but an administrative entity in BiH, then be able to do the same regarding other ethnic groups in the exyu, and then we would have one funny looking map, not that it matters what the RS status is, it is still going to be third world, along with the rest of the Balkans. |
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Mar 2, 2009 18:55:11 GMT -5
Tito,
Yours is an emotional view.
Try to take away the emotional/patriotic view and then answer, I really dont get it, why is this applicable all over the world but not BiH ?
Ljudozer you answered my question with a question and for now lets stick to BiH
they have also the right to organize their own sovereign and independent government.
Why does this no apply to Serbs in BiH ?
|
|
|
|
Post by boscrocop on Mar 2, 2009 18:59:53 GMT -5
Yours is an emotional view. Try to take away the emotional/patriotic view and then answer, I really dont get it, why is this applicable all over the world but not BiH ? Are you talking to me or him? If you are talking to me, then let me ask from where have you gotten that this is applied in the rest of the world, when it is not even applied in the rest of the Balkans. And it is not like the parts of BiH where Serbs made up most of the populace was made up by Serbs left Bi,H in the process of "self determination" the territory where Bosniacs could live was reduced by about half. So if you want to talk about border changes, as it seems you do, then you should at least be able to compromise, and at the same time apply the same rules you give to Bosnia to Serbia. |
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Mar 2, 2009 19:02:04 GMT -5
Fixed I was replying to Tito when your post beat mine in order.
To all
I dont need idiotic posts to railroad this question so either reply with intelligent comments/answers or dont bother as I will delete your azzes.
|
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Mar 2, 2009 19:06:40 GMT -5
Vinyak
Tito got it right. BIH was mixed all across the country. Meaning, there was no specific area with real majorities. It was just a country for all three ethnicities with no specific regions of control by any one. Then when the ethnic cleansing was committed it created that. But it was only through cleansing off population where the goal of majorities was obtained.
|
|
|
|
Post by bosanskinovi on Mar 2, 2009 19:08:19 GMT -5
There's an abundance of "normal" answers in the thread that you choose to ignore vinyak...I'm just pointing out that this is a point of frustration for Serbs  |
|
|
|
Post by tito on Mar 2, 2009 19:09:31 GMT -5
they have also the right to organize their own sovereign and independent government.Why does this no apply to Serbs in BiH ? Serbs claimed 2/3 of BiH when more then half of all land was state owned, today they are claiming Srebrenica, there is no end to the madness inside their expansionist minds. Maybe when Serbs give Sandzak everything they want in BiH we can reach a compromise(49% of BiH to Serbia and 49% of Serbia to BiH, genocide included). |
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Mar 2, 2009 19:09:39 GMT -5
Ok so can that be held as a legal argument to contradict the UN's view on self determination considering we all know that the situation we are in is a deadlock ?
There's an abundance of "normal" answers in the thread that you choose to ignore vinyak...I'm just pointing out that this is a point of frustration for Serbs
Yes there is but yours was not so it was deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by boscrocop on Mar 2, 2009 19:09:56 GMT -5
Fixed I was replying to Tito when your post beat mine in order. To all I dont need idiotic posts to railroad this question so either reply with intelligent comments/answers or dont bother as I will delete your azzes. you are getting angry.. anyways, your question makes no sense, seen as you know that Serbs in BiH are not the only people in the world who are not allowed to rejoin their region with another country, or make their own country... this here mr vinjak, does not apply to, well almost anyone in the whole world. "The right of self-determination is the collective right of peoples to determine their own future free of any outside interference or coercion. It includes the right to determine their political status and to freely pursue their economic, social, spiritual and cultural development." more so, it would only have been "self-determination" if the territory wanting to rejoin Serbia would be the places where Serbs made up most of the population.... that would be if RS was 35% of BiH and not 49%... |
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Mar 2, 2009 19:12:34 GMT -5
Just to add.
The whole principle of self-determination assumes that you have a clear majority in a specific region. Because in a democracy you have to be able to win a vote for sovereignty. Currently, there are clear areas of majorities in BIH but that was created through ethnic cleansing. If you returned people to where they lived, no area would have that right.
|
|
|
|
Post by boscrocop on Mar 2, 2009 19:16:50 GMT -5
to be honest the whole of exyu was a mix, when the nationalistic rant started in the 80ties, it ended the only way it could end..tragic....
outsiders probably look at Cros Serbs and Bosniacs as the same shit, and laugh at our wars, the same way we laugh when we hear about tribes in Africa killing each other..
Anyways, I do not get this thread, is this about "theoretical" border changes?
|
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Mar 2, 2009 19:21:29 GMT -5
But this is an important question. Because think about this.
If no Bosniak, or very few, actually lived in Srebrenica, or any current region that is now considered RS...do you think we would have that big of an issue with a referendum for seperation?
So much of this is the fact that so many of us have connections to the land that is now RS. When I see borders that would give my hometown to RS, I get sick.
So, if there were clear Serb areas, in history, I honestly don't think there would be any complaints about a referendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Mar 2, 2009 19:26:14 GMT -5
Anyways, I do not get this thread, is this about "theoretical" border changes?
Nah its just something I was curious about
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Mar 2, 2009 19:29:20 GMT -5
So, if there were clear Serb areas, in history, I honestly don't think there would be any complaints about a referendum. Maybe if was directly connected to Sandzak and even that would be wrong since it is all Bosnian land. |
|
|
|
Post by boscrocop on Mar 2, 2009 19:29:51 GMT -5
If most Serbs asked for the parts of Bosnia where they made up most of the people before the war, and wanted to join Serbia, that would be fair enough in my book, seen as most Bosniacs wanted to leave what was left of Yugoslavia.
But I would rather have more regional cooperation in exyu, after all we Balkan peoples, and especially south Slavs have many things in common, like language, traditions, appearance and we had one of the greatest countries ever...
|
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Mar 2, 2009 19:32:17 GMT -5
I have read all your answers and a picture forms which is (in my mind) asking for a whole lot of other questions.
When dayton was formed did the authors of the plan use the UN charter "right of self determination" to create RS ? and if so does that not now change everything of what you guys pointed to,since RS has the majority peoples and they are all in one place ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Mar 2, 2009 19:34:53 GMT -5
If most Serbs asked for the parts of Bosnia where they made up most of the people before the war, and wanted to join Serbia, that would be fair enough in my book, seen as most Bosniacs wanted to leave what was left of Yugoslavia. Not at all since Bosnia was there 1000 yeas before the creation of the fake state named Yugoslavia. Serbs who don’t like it can always move to Serbia, no one will force them to stay. |
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Mar 2, 2009 19:36:28 GMT -5
I have read all your answers and a picture forms which is (in my mind) asking for a whole lot of other questions. When dayton was formed did the authors of the plan use the UN charter "right of self determination" to create RS ? and if so does that not now change everything of what you guys pointed to,since RS has the majority peoples and they are all in one place ? Naw. First, it says there there is no right for independence. Second, it says under Dayton that one of its goals has to be to return populations to their pre-war regions. Dayton is not a success until that happens. Dayton was signed to create peace but the outline you see today was formed completley by ethnic cleansing. |
|
