The Marymount Literary Connection serves as a forum for students to further discuss the literature they read both at home and at school.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Grade 8: Zlata and the War (Due before Monday, March 21st)
First, post at least one question you had while reading the article on the Bosnian war. Then, review others' questions and attempt to answer at least one.
One question I had during reading the rest of the article "The History Place" is why Richard Holbrooke stated that this was "the greatest failure of the West since the 1930's." I mean, what does he mean by failure? Is it failing of not killing more people, or something else?
Hello! The question I have is : Why did Bill Clinton promise during his election, that he would had stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, but issued an ultimatum through NATO??
Denise, In a way, the war was about earning something: territory. Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks were essentially on one side and Bosnian Serbs on the other. The Serbs wanted to ensure that Bosnia was specifically their territory after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Mihnea, Milosevic's political power goes back a long way. In 1987, he emerged as a supporter of Serbs, who claimed that they were being oppressed in the province of Kosovo. He was, however, criticized for being too supportive of one group of people, as Yugoslavia was communist and, in theory, pushed for equality: "brotherhood and unity." Then in 1992, Milosevic and his allies pushed for and succeeded in creating a democracy. So at first, Milosevic seems like someone who is fighting for people's rights.
Stavros, I think by failure he means that, for the most part, what was happening in Bosnia was being ignored by international communities. Genocide was happening rather openly, and was not stopped. UN forces which were in Bosnia were only involved to a small degree. This is maybe also why the war isn't so well known to us now.
Sofia, Your question in a way is similar to Denise's. See if any of this answers your question and then ask another if you need more clarification!
Dafne, I think that was one way Bill Clinton could step in and help stop what was happening. However, this move has been highly criticized.
Hi everyone! There were two questions that came in my mind while I was reading the article:
1) Why did the U.N, United States and the European Community didn't take an action to stop the Serbs in Bosnia who were freely committing genocide against Muslims?
2) Why did Milosevic encouraged ethnic groups to have a War?
@ Sofia I think the main cause of the war was the conflict between the three ethnic groups who wanted to get independence from Yugoslavia, and this problem ended up in a War.
Hi Classmates 1)Why was Yugoslavia created after world war II even though they knew there were great etnic diffrences? 2)Why wasn't there a goverment of small leader's for each country and then a great "boss" which would rapresent the country like in the American goverment?
Dafne: I think he could help to try and stop the war, but it wasn't approoved by many people, and nobody really retained his idear good and positive! thank you mis gellso for clarifying my ideas
Under the UN Convention on Genocide in 1948, the 127 state signatories undertook to “prevent and punish” genocide, defined as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”, including the causing of serious bodily or mental harm, preventing births or inflicting conditions calculated to lead to a group's destruction. States may act alone or call on the UN to take “appropriate” measures.
Also, the UN charter only sanctions force in self-defence (Article 51) or when authorised by the Security Council to prevent a breach of the peace or an act of aggression (Chapter VII). It specifically forbids intervention “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state” (meaning it should not intervene in civil war conflicts), though this injunction can be overridden by a Chapter VII authorization.
The UN intervened in Bosnian under Chapter VII in the name of preserving the peace.
SO, what made this difficult for the UN was the fact that it started as a civil war. When genocide became known, it was still hesitant to intervene because it was an internal conflict. Yet eventually it became strong or dangerous enough that it was necessary for the UN to intervene.
Why wasn't there a government of small leaders for each country and then a great "boss" which would represent the country like in the American goverment?
I think that something like the many leaders would make the situation even worse. There was already the conflict between the ethnic groups, and the people wouldn't stand this either. Probably, there would be jealousy among them and they'd compete to prove who's the best. Also, the idea of having some leaders but one main governor, who actually takes all the "glory," would make them not care, something that nobody wants. To sum up, I believe that a decision like this wouldn't make any good.
Hi everyone my question is If you could change any 4 facts in the hand out what will it are? And I am answering Ludovica M question which is Why didn't they solve the problem instead of making a war? The hawser to this is that it is hard to solve a problem if the people that you are shoveling it with are your sworn enemy and with every one on edge a person could say one word and there is a war going on.
My Question is: - Why were civilians being targeted?
And my Answer to Fizah's question "Why did the U.N, United States and the European Community didn't take an action to stop the Serbs in Bosnia who were freely committing genocide against Muslims?" is: Well, I think the reason why U.N, United States, and the European Community didn't take action right away was because they were afraid to help. They probably thought that by helping, it would make a bigger war. Also, they might have also thought that everything would be solved by itself and so they just waited until the war became too dangerous.
my question:
ReplyDeletewhy did they want to declare war if they didn't have a real and clean motivation to earn something?
Hello Ms. Gelso and classmates
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading the Bosnian article, I had 2 questions about it.
1. Why did the federal legislature of Serbia re-elected Milosevic the president of the remaining Yugoslavia?
2. Even though Milosevic caused lots of problems, why did the government support him?
Hope somebody can help me out
Hello Ms Gelso and fellow classmates,
ReplyDeleteOne question I had during reading the rest of the article "The History Place" is why Richard Holbrooke stated that this was "the greatest failure of the West since the 1930's." I mean, what does he mean by failure? Is it failing of not killing more people, or something else?
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteMy question is:
What is the main cause for the begginig of the Bosinian War?
Hello!
ReplyDeleteThe question I have is :
Why did Bill Clinton promise during his election, that he would had stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, but issued an ultimatum through NATO??
Good questions! Let's try and discuss them!
ReplyDeleteDenise,
In a way, the war was about earning something: territory. Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks were essentially on one side and Bosnian Serbs on the other. The Serbs wanted to ensure that Bosnia was specifically their territory after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Mihnea,
Milosevic's political power goes back a long way. In 1987, he emerged as a supporter of Serbs, who claimed that they were being oppressed in the province of Kosovo. He was, however, criticized for being too supportive of one group of people, as Yugoslavia was communist and, in theory, pushed for equality: "brotherhood and unity." Then in 1992, Milosevic and his allies pushed for and succeeded in creating a democracy. So at first, Milosevic seems like someone who is fighting for people's rights.
Stavros,
I think by failure he means that, for the most part, what was happening in Bosnia was being ignored by international communities. Genocide was happening rather openly, and was not stopped. UN forces which were in Bosnia were only involved to a small degree. This is maybe also why the war isn't so well known to us now.
Sofia,
Your question in a way is similar to Denise's. See if any of this answers your question and then ask another if you need more clarification!
Dafne,
I think that was one way Bill Clinton could step in and help stop what was happening. However, this move has been highly criticized.
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteThere were two questions that came in my mind while I was reading the article:
1) Why did the U.N, United States and the European Community didn't take an action to stop the Serbs in Bosnia who were freely committing genocide against Muslims?
2) Why did Milosevic encouraged ethnic groups to have a War?
@ Sofia
ReplyDeleteI think the main cause of the war was the conflict between the three ethnic groups who wanted to get independence from Yugoslavia, and this problem ended up in a War.
my question is : Why didn't they solve the broblem instead of making a war?
ReplyDeleteMy question is: Why are the United Nations still determined to keep a part of Yugoslavia?
ReplyDeleteHi Classmates
ReplyDelete1)Why was Yugoslavia created after world war II even though they knew there were great etnic diffrences?
2)Why wasn't there a goverment of small leader's for each country and then a great "boss" which would rapresent the country like in the American goverment?
Dafne: I think he could help to try and stop the war, but it wasn't approoved by many people, and nobody really retained his idear good and positive! thank you mis gellso for clarifying my ideas
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the article, I had one big question in mind:
ReplyDeleteHow did the differences between these three ethnic groups affect their lives so much that they needed to do something so dramatic?
Let's talk a bit more about the UN's role...
ReplyDeleteUnder the UN Convention on Genocide in 1948, the 127 state signatories undertook to “prevent and punish” genocide, defined as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”, including the causing of serious bodily or mental harm, preventing births or inflicting conditions calculated to lead to a group's destruction. States may act alone or call on the UN to take “appropriate” measures.
Also, the UN charter only sanctions force in self-defence (Article 51) or when authorised by the Security Council to prevent a breach of the peace or an act of aggression (Chapter VII). It specifically forbids intervention “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state” (meaning it should not intervene in civil war conflicts), though this injunction can be overridden by a Chapter VII authorization.
The UN intervened in Bosnian under Chapter VII in the name of preserving the peace.
SO, what made this difficult for the UN was the fact that it started as a civil war. When genocide became known, it was still hesitant to intervene because it was an internal conflict. Yet eventually it became strong or dangerous enough that it was necessary for the UN to intervene.
@ Alessandro's second question:
ReplyDeleteWhy wasn't there a government of small leaders for each country and then a great "boss" which would represent the country like in the American goverment?
I think that something like the many leaders would make the situation even worse. There was already the conflict between the ethnic groups, and the people wouldn't stand this either. Probably, there would be jealousy among them and they'd compete to prove who's the best. Also, the idea of having some leaders but one main governor, who actually takes all the "glory," would make them not care, something that nobody wants. To sum up, I believe that a decision like this wouldn't make any good.
Hope I answered to you!
Hi everyone my question is
ReplyDeleteIf you could change any 4 facts in the hand out what will it are? And I am answering Ludovica M question which is Why didn't they solve the problem instead of making a war?
The hawser to this is that it is hard to solve a problem if the people that you are shoveling it with are your sworn enemy and with every one on edge a person could say one word and there is a war going on.
Hello Everyone!
ReplyDeleteMy Question is:
- Why were civilians being targeted?
And my Answer to Fizah's question "Why did the U.N, United States and the European Community didn't take an action to stop the Serbs in Bosnia who were freely committing genocide against Muslims?" is:
Well, I think the reason why U.N, United States, and the European Community didn't take action right away was because they were afraid to help. They probably thought that by helping, it would make a bigger war. Also, they might have also thought that everything would be solved by itself and so they just waited until the war became too dangerous.