Hi,

now we have gotten a mail from our friend Emil, which shows immediately why the FYEG will have difficulties to find a common position. I would like to give an overview here about the possible positions we could take. Please read it VERY CAREFULLY.

But first to Emil: Dear Emil, do you know that for the big majority of us it would be impossible to agree completely on your position?

You wrote:

MACEDONIAN PEOPLE IS WITH YUGOSLAVIAN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!
STOP NATOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
STOP CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP BOMBING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE SHOW SUPPORT TO YUGOSLAVIA!!!!!

Some comments:

Are you sure, that the "macedonian people" is with "yugoslavian people"? Who is who there?

FACT 1. The Serbian(Yugoslavian) government is on the way to massacre a big part of the yugoslawian people, as ethnic albanians among them are concerned (in their province of kosovo). It's the yugoslawian government which began this conflict. And it's the "yugoslavian people" who in its majority supports a government which massacres a minority among themselves.

FACT 2. The Macedonian government invited US and NATO troops already several years ago, to prevent the serbian/yugoslavian army to occupy Macedonia as they had done with Croatia and Bosnia before. There were obviously some Macedonians who considered Yugoslavia as more dangerous and hostile than the US/NATO.

FACT 3. There are at least two big groups within the "macedonian people", ethnic albanians and ethnic macedonians. I cannot believe that the albanian macedonians are in favour of the yugoslavian army. Of which "macedonian people" are you talking about?

This way your different demands exclude eachother.

DEMAND 1. MACEDONIAN PEOPLE IS WITH YUGOSLAVIAN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!
There is no one yugoslavian people to be in solidarity with, as they themselves are in civil war. Foreigners can only choose in supporting one of the two parties (serbian/yugoslavian government or kosovo albanians). By abstaining, and keeping a neutral position you support just the stronger one (yugoslavian government).

DEMAND 2. STOP NATOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! and STOP BOMBING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That would be comparatively easy, the problem with it, is that it means leaving Milosevic and his serbian/yugoslavian government continuing their massacres.

DEMAND 3. STOP CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which criminals to stop? Criminals No.1: Serbian/Yugoslavian government pursuing war against their own people in Kosovo. Criminals No.2: NATO breached international law, by attacking Serbia/Yugoslavia without having a UN permission to do so. Criminal No.3: The kosovo-albanian guerilla UCK, but only as far as they commit war crimes. THEY have - by international law - the RIGHT to defend themselves (also with arms) against suppression and "ethnic cleansing".

DEMAND 4. PLEASE SHOW SUPPORT TO YUGOSLAVIA!!!!! I don't think that you will find any single democrat in Western Europe, who would dare to support the Yugoslavia/Serbia of Slobodan Milosevic, who brought war on its own croatian, than bosnian, now albanian and soon macedonian people and neighbours.

You wrote:
GREENS MUST PROTEST,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GERMAN GREENS OFFICIAL ATTITUDE IS DISAPOINTING,IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ONLY WANTED TO GET IN THE GOVERMENT

The dissens within Western European Greens and Pacifists is among the following seven alternatives:

OPINION 1: Military interventions are ALWAYS injust. It's a pity that we could not prevent the Kosovo albanians from being massacred by our economic sanctions, but they have to look for themselves. We should have stayed out.

OPINION 2: Military interventions are only just if there is an UN mandate to do them. This is missing today, as Russia and China said NO. So we should not intervene in Kosovo until we convince Russia and China to say yes. We should have stayed out.

OPINION 3: Military interventions are only just if there is an UN mandate to do them. This is missing today, as Russia and China said NO. But we agree to breach international law in this case and go to war as to prevent the Serbian/Yugoslavian government to continue with its even bigger breach of international law. There is the risk that the intervention will not help the Kosovo Albanians and that it will enlarge the conflict and bring war on Macedonia and perhaps Albania as well or to get Russia supporting Serbia/Yugoslavia, but these risks are carefully calculated and are very small this time. It was good that we intervened.

OPINION 4: Military interventions without UN mandate are injust. In some exceptional cases they should be done anyway (while breaching international law): The risks should be calculated carefully. This time this had not been done. The risk to get Russia (and/or other slavian countries) supporting their slavian brothers in Serbia/Yugoslavia or to involve Macedonia and/or Albania into the war (as the Albanian population over there whishes to support the Kosovo Albanians) and to enlarge the conflict that way is too big here. We should have stayed out.

OPINION 5: Military interventions based only on air control and bombings don't lead to anything. But the UCK is strong enough to protect the albanians on the ground if only there is support from the air. (Like the situation was in Croatia as the Croatians had been secretely prepared by the US before the bombings started). So it was good to intervene.

OPINION 6: Military interventions based only on air control and bombings don't lead to anything. The UCK is too weak to protect anybody on the ground. Yugoslavia/Serbia is massacring their albanian compatriots using their dominance on the ground and NATO is bombing Yugoslavia/Serbia using its dominance in the air. We are running the risk to just kill both sides. Without NATO intervention Serbia/Yusoslavia would have killed less Albanians as they kill now. We should have stayed out.

OPINION 7: Military interventions based only on air control and bombings don't lead to anything. The UCK is too weak. So we should have waited until we have enough tanks etc. in the region to intervene on the ground as well.

Ok, I would like to invite FYEG to choose one of these 7 opinions (or to add another, if I might have forgotten one). Me personally, I am completely undecided. I am fearing that No.1 is too cynical, I don't believe in No.5, I am fearing No.4, so I tend more to No.6 but without any sympathy whatsoever for the Serbian/Yugoslavian government.

However, I feel not to be informed sufficiently on the balance of forces on the ground as well as I have no idea about the balance of power within the Serbian and Yugoslavian governements to be able to judge, if there is a chance that Milosevic could give up. However, I am curious to get your reactions.

Malte Woydt