Letters
Dyer’s Kosovo position one-sided with contempt
I was deeply distressed about the tone and presentation of the facts in Gwynne Dyer’s “Putin’s bluffing after Kosovo declaration” [March 27–April 3]. In it he states that the United States is “deliberately tearing up the charter of the United Nations” and he cites the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Serbia, and the recognition of Kosovo while ignoring the Russian-led invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan, all of which occurred while Russia (as the USSR) was a member of the United Nations. He then goes on to state that “Giving it independence without Serbia’s assent and in defiance of the UN rules…it undermines those essential UN rules that were invented to bring some order to international affairs,” as if the secession of Croatia, Bosnia, and Slovenia and their subsequent recognition hadn’t happened and ignores the fact that the UN was running the territory since 1999.
Most distressing is the 12th paragraph, where he directly states that territorial integrity is more important than human rights or the aspirations of a people, giving writ to such cases as the Chinese repression of Tibet and the Russian invasion of Chechnya. It is a disturbingly familiar refrain to see such a feudal contempt for the individual, and a one-sided presentation of the issue, harnessed to a polemic. To fight hypocrisy with more hypocrisy only darkens the issue further and clouds what little light there is left.
> Andrew Watson / Vancouver


email
print

You want clarity on the Serb issue? Then spend some time researching the facts. Form your opinions on proof and evidence, not on media interpretations and outright lies. Go to www.rulersoftheworld.com. It is a portal and a great place for you to start your research.
Seek the truth
www.rulersoftheworld.com
I completely understand your distress with the fact that for many people “territorial integrity is more important than human rights or the aspirations of a people.” I also think this is wrong but this is reality.
The current world order is based on realism, or Realpolitik, the oldest and most used theory of international relations. The realist approach views states as rational and unitary factors focused solely on self-interests, national security, and balance of power.
Realism influences states to pursue their national interests even if they are contrary to the interests of other states and peoples. Morals, ethics, and legality are the least important principles for realists.
How do we, ordinary people, go about changing this? I’m not sure.
SAVO HELETA
Author of "Not My Turn to Die:
Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia"
http://savoheleta.livejournal.com