Macedonia
Gyorgy Scrinis (GLW May 26) claims that I participate in a campaign to monopolise the name Macedonia. In fact I have no problem with either "Greek-Macedonians" or "Slav-Macedonians," simply calling themselves "Macedonians."
He thinks the name "Macedonian" is the reason that Greece oppresses the minority: "The Greek government has pursued this course because it does not recognise any use of the name (Macedonian) other than its own ..." He states I offer no other reason why these people are oppressed.
But why would using the same name create oppression, rather than a little mistrust at worst, if not interested curiosity? This is where the other factors come in, which Scrinis calls "left reductionism."
Scrinis can't imagine any other reason for oppression, yet he explains that the current national identities in the region arose only from the late 18th century. This was due to the growth of a capitalist middle class in various regions, each of which sought to set up its own national state. But as there were no clear boundaries between peoples in the region, each new ruling class, in order to justify territorial claims, often expelled or forcibly assimilated other groups who didn't identify with the ruling group. The main such states were Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, and their oppression of the "Slav-Macedonians" had its origins in this process.
He doesn't understand that these people developed a national identity in their own right and didn't identify with any outside power and hence called themselves simply Macedonian. Since he incorrectly believes that an independent Macedonian identity developed only in the Serbian ruled region after 1913 (simply ignoring historical facts), he demands these people call themselves "Vardar-Macedonians."
If the name is so important, how is it that Greece had a consul in the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for over 40 years despite the name, that Greek students studied at Skopia University and that the Australian weekly Greek Herald had a "Macedonian page" in the Macedonian language until a couple of years ago?
Regardless of all this, the concrete issues are:
1. The Greek government's oppression of the minority, which we both condemn.
2. The Greek government's bullying and embargoing of the Macedonian republic to make it change its name before being recognised. Where does Scrinis stand on this?
3. There can be no territorial changes in the Balkans, because wherever minorities exist the regions contain a mixture of nationalities. The issue must be to ensure minority rights rather than changing borders. Macedonia has made it clear that it has no reece, but Scrinis brushes this aside, since this would mess up his "even-handed" line.
Michael Karadjis
Leichhardt, Sydney
World Environment Day
World Environment Day in Sydney taught me some things.
One was that the Australian Conservation Foundation censors the distribution of political material at its events. At the ACF's March for the Future rally an official prevented me from selling the Green Left Weekly.
That wasn't the only oddity. They started their march from the same venue as, but an hour earlier than, a similar Environmental Youth Alliance march.
The silent and orderly ACF march was small enough for me to count every participant when we reached the Darling Harbour rally site. There were 70 people, of whom I saw no more than six who looked as though they were in their teens. A number of the adult marchers had brought their children, but the look and feel of the event was stodgy and middle-aged.
But the media rallied. Every TV station sent cameras, and reporters were rampant.
The NSW Minister for the Environment marched and addressed the final rally along with Ros Kelly — but not until the computer company Logical Solutions was thanked from the podium for sponsoring the day.
So I went back to the EYA rally. Not knowing the march details didn't matter — I heard the chanting, whistling and drumming from 500 yards away. There was a small army of high school aged youth having the time of their lives, literally dancing down the street — just seeing them energised me, joining in was a joy.
The EYA rally was chaired and addressed by people who appeared to be under 20, and what they spoke about was action.
My point in writing this is not just to condemn the ACF for their political censorship (I intend to write a letter of complaint) but to suggest why they need such tactics: they can rally the media, big business and politicians but not young people.
Barry Healy
Sydney
Blue Mountains zoo
Judge M. L. Pearlman noted in the NSW Environment Court recently a number of breaches in Zoo plans submitted, and work commenced, in November 1992, at Boddington Hill, Blue Mountains, NSW. Justice Pearlman directed the developer, Mr Peter Roach, to remove structures from the zoo site and restore the dozer-ravaged lands.
Mr Roach and consulting engineer Mr Ralph Williams put the dozers onto the site, on November 12, 1992 to commence what they call a "Fauna and Flora Park." The dozers ripped out swathes of bush and , including a snake pit, were erected. The zoo site is on the left side, ascending, of the hill between Bullaburra and Wentworth Falls.
Summing up, the judge said that the works on the site were
- in breach of Council's conditions
- not "specified" in the development consent
- not mentioned in the documents sent to Council
- detailed plans, at Nov 12, 1992, had not been prepared
- Mr Williams had sent only one relevant plan
- this plan did not have full details
- no tenders were offered
- no building contract was let
- no survey was done for the pollutant collection pond.
- the work had been started in the wrong place.
Mr Williams, engineer for the zoo, and many other projects in the Blue Mountains, had been Mayor of the Blue Mountains City Council. His final declaration to electors was issued on September 8, 1992. Mr Williams said, "As a consulting engineer, business person, conservationist and long term resident, I have tremendous concern and respect for the Mountains. I have been, and will always be, a strong voice of restraint, caution and care. You can promote sympathetic development in harmony with the Mountains environment; or destroy it. Common sense, intelligent planning, smart decisions have been my goals. You can protect and preserve our bush, our forest, our trees, our water, our home; or ruin them all."
Dennis Kevans
Wentworth Falls NSW
'Free speech'
Recently I attended a rally in Brisbane's City Mall to mark this year's International Day of Action for Women's Health (28 May).
The theme internationally for the day was "Abortion: We Shall No Longer be Silent About it!" and the rally organisers had invited a number of speakers from pro abortion rights groups.
At the conclusion of the program the platform was opened up to supporters of abortion rights (or so I thought). The platform was immediately taken by a woman who described herself as a "feminist for euphemism for "woman who opposes other women's abortion rights"). At the same time, a man held up an offensive, and grossly inaccurate, anti abortion poster.
When a few of us attempted to remove the poster and have the "feminist" no longer heard, we were accused of "stifling free speech" by so-called supporters of abortion rights at the rally.
When the slogan of "free speech" becomes a guise for giving over a progressive platform to a powerful far right minority which has the State Government in its pocket, it's time to stop and define what we mean by "free speech".
If the rally had been one in support of land rights or opposing racism, would the crowd have tolerated speakers or posters from the Ku Klux Klan or the National Front? If we'd been rallying in support of a workers strike would the crowd turn over the platform to a strikebreaker? I think not.
Yet when it comes to women's rights, some of our "supporters" prefer to wallow in the self indulgence of a debating club atmosphere rather than give real support to active campaigns.
Anti abortion propaganda and speakers have no place on a platform supposedly in support of women's rights. We need to ensure that such "free speech" is challenged and halted.
Anna McCormack
Brisbane
Bosnia
Slavenka Drakulic's article, Mass Rape in Bosnia: Behind a Wall of Silence (GLW, May 26), only reinforces my opinion that many if not most commentators on the Bosnian war (that we are allowed access to) are more concerned with their own personal or political agenda than the welfare of the Bosnians.
The main thrust of her argument seems to be that although rape is a "standard tactic of war", rape perpetrated by the Serbs is "unprecedented" since "they are organised and systematic attempts to cleanse (to move, resettle, exile) the Muslim population from certain territories Serbs want to conquer in order to establish a "Greater Serbia". It is therefore "legitimate to 'use' accounts of rape (or anything else for that matter) as a means of getting attention and influencing public opinion" for the Muslim cause or Muslim women's cause (which she intends is not made clear).
However, Ms Drakulic runs into a "slight" problem: there is no evidence for her assertion as to the "unprecedented" nature of the alleged Serbian crimes (as opposed to your "standard" every day variety of rape and genocide committed by others in the conflict). Nor had anyone ever been able or willing to make public the evidence to support the "news stories, eyewitness accounts and official reports" that, according to the author, make it "clear that mass rapes are taking place in Bosnia". The author recognises that the few (ie three) personal accounts that she can find do not support her main contention, but as she says most women ("nine out of ten") do not report rape (even when asked?)
Then how does she know about the exceptional nature of the Serbian crimes?
In the end the only evidence the author can give are personal testimonies collected by herself (which would be available from all sides of the dispute if the victims were asked) and "news stories, eyewitness accounts and official reports" (the latter being largely hidden from the public gaze — perhaps until such time as we are expending our passions elsewhere?). It would be nice if the GL editors were more mindful of the fact that its readers are (hopefully) a little more weary of news stories and official reports being used as "proof" (eg. the "mass torture" and "rape" of the Kuwaiti population after the Iraqi invasion).
She chastises government and political organisations for not using "mass systematic rape" as a part of the propaganda war. Well this is her contribution to the cause and should be read as such. It is also, judging by its selective coverage of the war, the contribution of GL to its own agenda. It is not a contribution that is likely to do anything for the victims of rape and torture, and as with any one sided coverage, will only serve to encourage "the good guys" to escalate their own "non-systematic" atrocities. The women of Bosnia, it seems, are destined to become the victims of two wars: the ethnic war and its complement, the propaganda war. The least GL editors can do is report for its readers the views and suffering of all sides to this conflict. GL would do better,for all Bosnians, not to take sides.
Glenn Anderson
Glebe NSW[Edited for length.]