October 22, 2010

The New York Times has an interesting article on a Serbian war criminal suspect and the response of the EU. Ratko Mladic is a former Bosnian Serb general that is accused of playing a brutal role in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. He is blamed for the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the Bosnian town Srebrenica (an enclave which was under the supposed protection of UN peacekeepers from the Netherlands). Mladic has been on the run for 15 years. Sometimes he's in plain sight, like at soccer games and weddings. He once was protected by many personal allies, military forces, and government officials, but it's believed that he's now being hidden by only a small handful of loyalists. As a result, it's assumed that he'd be easier to capture now. But now there's the issue of whether arresting him is a priority.

It was once stipulated that Mladic's arrest was a prerequisite for Serbia to join the European Union. But several European countries seem to be softening their stance. The article discusses the quandary, "In the name of unity and stability, should Europe put a premium on rehabilitating a battered country that became a pariah state in the Balkan wars of the 1990's? Or in the name of its human rights tradition, should Europe first require a friendly Serbian government to make the politically difficult arrest of a man blamed for the worst ethnically motivated mass murder on the Continent since World War II?"

Withholding EU membership was seen as the greatest incentive for Serbia to arrest Mladic. If EU countries decide to not give Serbia that ultimatum, some doubt Mladic will ever be arrested. As more time passes, there's less fervor in the push to arrest Mladic -- he's older, people say he's sicker and living an isolated life. In addition, the vividness of the war atrocities are receding for people outside of the Balkans as more time passes by. The two year old Serbian government or Boris Tadic (which is pro-Western) has vowed to arrest Mladic. Yet, nothing has come of that. Many analysts in Serbia and internationally remain skeptical. A key protector of Mladic's fellow fugitive, Radovan Karadzic (who has been arrested), said with a wry smile, "It's easy to hide successfully when nobody wants to find you."

There's a strong possibility that when European foreign ministers meet in Luxembourg next Monday that they will decide to not require an immediate arrest by Serbia and that instead the EU admission process can start (the process takes several years to complete). However, some senior European officials and human rights groups feel that a compromise over Mladic will undermine international law and is morally reprehensible. Dutch diplomats say they are the lone holdouts for an arrest as a prerequisite. They are hoping to delay any discussions until December, when the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague issues his annual report evaluating Serbia's efforts to arrest Mladic. The chief prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, believes that Mladic's arrest should remain a top priority. He described going to a commemoration of the massacre this past summer and how emotional it was. He said, "I could see that for all the survivors and relatives, Srebrenica is not an event from the past, but something dominating their life, not only today but tomorrow. And the number one priority for the victims is to see Mladic in the Hague." (Full Story)

Real pressure needs to be put on Serbia to arrest Mladic. He needs to be brought to justice. It's atrocious that he's still on the loose -- I don't care how old or sick he is. It doesn't necessarily have to be withholding EU membership to put pressure on Serbia, but some kind of real European or international pressure needs to be put on them. I don't care how politically difficult or unpopular it would be to arrest Mladic, the Serbian government has an obligation to bring him in.   

---

Thousands of Tibetan students in western China (mostly in Tibetan towns) have taken part in protests since Tuesday in response to Chinese proposals to limit or stop the use of the Tibetan language in local schools (and limit or stop the teaching of Tibetan in schools). Chinese leaders are pushing a shift towards Mandarin, which is China's official language. The protests that followed were the largest in Tibetan areas since the 2008 uprising that started in Lhasa and soon spread across the Tibetan plateau. Fortunately, this protest has been peaceful. It mostly involves students, though others have joined in. A protest over this issue was also held in Beijing on Friday at a university that specializes in teaching ethnic minorities. The protesters' slogan was "Equality of ethnicities, freedom of language."

The anger over this proposal is that many Tibetans feel that Han Chinese, China's dominant ethnic group (and, thus, the ones that often formulate policy), are diluting their culture. Many Tibetans in western China also complain that there are strict controls in place over the practice of Tibetan Buddhism, including a ban on images of the Dalai Lama (their spiritual leader). There is also concern among Tibetans regarding large-scale Han migration to Tibetan towns. Not only is there a fear of their culture being diluted, but there's also anger that the Han end up taking many jobs that would have gone to Tibetans.

Similar protests regarding language happened in the city of Guangzhou in July. Ethnic Han who are Cantonese speakers protested against a local politician's proposal to force prominent programs on a local TV network to stop broadcasting in Cantonese and instead switch to Mandarin. (Full Story)

I think it's dangerous when communities feel that immigration results in their culture being diluted, but I also think it's dangerous when governments take efforts to minimize the use and teaching of a language. The issue of Tibet is already a very contentious issue in China (and internationally). Many people believe that Tibet shouldn't be a part of China. I think proposed government policies like this are only going to further alienate Tibetans in China, and cause a further rift between Tibetans and Han Chinese. This might motivate more efforts to seek independence -- and as China has remained very firm on their stance of Tibet (that it is a part of China), this could eventually lead to future clashes and conflict. Or perhaps, sadly, it will result in assimilation of Tibetans towards Han Chinese language and values in future generations.