Dear visitors:

We thank you for the interest you have shown in Kosovo On-Line. We believe that your reactions, opinions and comments will contribute to a constructive dialog for the resolution of the Kosovo problem.

The first topic was "Kosovo Today", authored by Pristina philosopher and publicist Shkelzen Maliqi, and academician Mihajlo Markovic from Belgrade. The second topic, "Kosovo in the Constitution" -- written by the former president of the Presidency of former Yugoslavia, Borisav Jovic, and Pristina lawyer and former communist official Azem Vllasi. Authors of texts on the third topic, "War or Peace in Kosovo" are Behlul Beqaj, a political scientist from Pristina and Predrag Simich, an associate of the Belgrade-based Institute for international policy and economics.

Please send comments, limited to around 35 lines, in Serbian or English to: cig@beta.opennet.org and redaksia@koha.net in Albanian.

Sincerely,

The Beta News Agency and the Koha Ditore daily

Mihajlo Markovic

* Dr. Esat Stavileqi, Pristina university professor

Mihajlo Markovic's article contains many contradictions, starting with the incorrect assertion that, "The inevitable and real conflict of interest lies in the fact that the majority of the population of Kosovo are Albanians, but, on the other hand, for centuries Kosovo has been the Serb motherland, and is today a part of the Serb state," and the untruthful assessment that, "They (the Albanians) believe that Kosovo is their land," from far back in time, "before the Serbs came to Kosovo, in the 6th and 7th centuries," and that, "(the Albanians) have proclaimed themselves to be the descendants of the Illyrians..." Furthermore, he dares to say, "There is no scientific fact to substantiate" this.

Even a relatively brief overview the history of the Albanian people, its ethnogenity and indigenity, leads one to the following scientific conclusions:

First, that the Illyrian roots of the Albanian people are directly linked to the historical identity of the Albanian people and that archaeologists have proven that ,"There is direct continuity in the material and spiritual culture between the Illyrians and the Albanians, based on archaeological evidence from a host of necropolises, dating from the middle ages, on the territory of the contemporary Albania."

Second, the archaeological finds in the studied necropolises testify to an Illyrian tradition, which continues after the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans.

Third, many world-class philology experts have come to the conclusion that, "The Albanian language has a direct link with the language of the Illyrians."

Fourth, that "A number of Yugoslav Ilyrologists contend that the Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians."

Fifth, that "The Albanians are one of the oldest peoples of Europe."

Sixth, that the Albanians, as the descendants of the Illyrians, are indigenous to the region they inhabit today.

Seventh, that the territory on which the Albanian language has developed from the language of the Illyrians "in broad outline corresponds to the contemporary Albanian state, but also stretches outside its borders, into Yugoslavia and Greece."

Eighth, that "Kosmet is not Serb (territory)," and that "the Serbs settled Kosovo during the expansion of the Serb state in that direction, under the Nemanjic dynasty."

Ninth, Slav, Turkish and Roma minorities were settled on ethnic Albanian territory during the middle ages and during the Ottoman rule, with the purpose of occupying (the land)," while the Slav minority had been greatly expanded by colonization between the two world wars, but that it had never been able to exceed 10 percent of the entire population."

Tenth, historic records say that the Albanians are indigenous to this area and that the Serbs are, in fact, settlers.

Therefore the problem lies in the fact that Mihajlo Markovic has based his statements on Serb interpretation of history, in which the history of the Albanian people is not presented as authentic, in its entirety and continuity down the centuries, "but rather separated and divided within among (the histories of) the states that ruled the Albanian regions and within the framework of relations between the Albanians and the southern Slavs."

The repression being exerted by the Serbian regime in Kosovo, he does not call by its proper name, but concludes that, "it is clear, that in Kosovo there exists a certain degree of political repression." The truth is that Serbia, as far as Kosovo is concerned, is defying the international community, violating all international conventions. All this is happening "for the purpose of changing the ethnic structure of Kosovo." Based on fact, "Kosovo today represents the grayest area of violations and abuse of human and national freedoms and rights in the Balkans," with traces of genocidal ideas, content, and aspirations in state acts and the factual events of genocide.

He proposes that the Albanians should participate in Serbian elections, at a time when the Albanians have called their own elections. He advises that the Albanians should recognize "that Serbia and Yugoslavia are their state," forgetting that the Albanians "experience the Republic of Kosovo as a vital and political land, and that the feeling has roots in the demographic and political reality of Kosovo," and that the Albanians "do not experience Serbia as their land in any combination, that Kosovo and the Albanians do not have a single reason more than the Slav peoples did to stay in a state entity uniting Serbia and Montenegro.

As far as qualifying the Albanians as the "minority" is concerned, instead of replying I shall pose a question: "How, as a result of the geopolitical division of a people, can one half of that same people be recognized as a nation, while at the same time the other half, just because it lives outside the motherland be considered a "national minority?"

Does Mihajlo Markovic not find Switzerland and some other states an adequate example?

Sooner or later the Albanians will realize their realistic, natural and political goal -- national unity, regardless of whether it is to someone's liking or not. The project will lead to consequences because there are few states in the world from which compact parts of their territory have been taken in an arbitrary manner, so that the country of origin borders with its land and its people -- in this case from Ohrid in the south, to Bar in the North.

Territories, which according to Academician Markovic are disputable, were joined to neighboring states (Greece, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro) not on the basis of political or natural law, but rather on the basis of power and European conferences dominated by Anglo-French diplomacy -- at the conferences in London and Paris.

The rules of international relations and law are clear and universal; they are exempt of desires or individual stands, or collective demands and I believe that Academician Markovic should agree on this point. Therefore it is logical to pose the question -- if Serbia is the homeland of the Serb people, then parts of that nation (as is the case with other nations) should be treated as national minorities in any other internationally recognized state, without there being a dual standard just for the (privileged) Serb people.

As far as place names are concerned, I would like to remind Academician Markovic that most places and localities in southern Serbia (in the regions of Nis, Prokuplje, Kursumlija, Leskovac, Vranje) retain their Albanian place names even today...

Local authority in the hands of the Albanians under a Serb umbrella offers nothing. A certain number of Albanian representatives in the Serbian legislature would legalize apartheid and the colonial position and that would create the "decorum" for the democratization of Serbia before the eyes of the international community, especially if one is to consider the stand of the so called Serb opposition in relation to Kosovo and the Albanians.

This raises the question of how the positions of the Hungarians and Sandzak Muslims have improved since they participated in the Serbian election? Two Serb policemen forced out of their offices the legal and legitimate leadership in Novi Pazar (elected in the elections), and in their stead installed a vassal leadership to the liking of Belgrade.

To be brief, after what has happened in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, after what is happening now in Montenegro, I believe that it is unjust and that it is immoral and politically unsustainable -- from all aspects -- to ask the Albanians to live under the control and jurisdiction of Serbia.

The Albanian people have come to realize this, and they will not be fooled any longer. Only force could compel this people into such a position, but one should consider that there will be no peace and prosperity in this part of Europe unless something is done.

The only fair and just course, both internationally acceptable and supported, is for Serbia to relinquish its domination of the Albanian people and Kosovo as some kind of middle ages colony and for it to accept serious and real dialog, defending through international guarantees the real interests of the Serbs in Kosovo, without prejudice, without myths and middle ages mystification. This would be the real and only way that the two peoples could live in peace and mutual understanding, thus avoiding possible conflicts and political tensions in that part of Europe. This would be the best answer to demands and a challenge for the new century.

* Besnik Zajmi, engineer

I would like to send my commendations to Koha Ditore and the BETA agency for their initiative to try to introduce some form of constructive dialog between the Albanians and Serbs devoted to the issues concerning Kosovo, in these difficult times.

Reading the authors of "Kosovo today" and "Kosovo in the Constitution," one can conclude that the authors have said nothing novel, except that they have attempted to describe the state of events in Kosovo rhetorically. This is known to all of us and to all the more important international factors. If we want to resolve the Kosovo issue without violence and war, then we should respect any dialog attempting to resolve the problem.

But, I would like to ask both editorial staffs, because of the seriousness of thing, to scrutinize the people they present with the opportunity to air their opinions and participate in these themes. I believe that in the future you will have the opportunity to spare us of opinions as those professed by Jovic and Vlasi. All of lived through their eras collectively, and the very appearance of these people (especially B. Jovic, who is the typical example of Serb chauvinism) who have lost all political credibility, could harm your and any other initiative.

Academician Markovic has tried to introduce some scientific misconceptions regarding origins: "The Kosovo Albanians do not find it enough that ethnic reason is on their side -- they do not concede historic rights to the Serbs. They believe that Kosovo had been their land, long before the Serbs arrived in Kosovo in the 6th and 7th centuries. They have proclaimed themselves to be the descendants of the Illyrians who lived in the Balkans before the arrival of the Romans. For that belief -- that they originate from the Illyrians and that they had lived in the Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs -- there is no scientific proof." I would like to ask him just one question: If there is no scientific proof to show that the Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians, would you be so kind to take some opportunity to present us with scientific facts that will explain the origins of the Albanians? Because just like the Serbs they could not have fallen out of the sky.

Borisav Jovic

* Dr. Arsim Bajrami, Law School professor in Pristina

Speaking about the constitutional position of Kosovo, the author employs untruths, unilateral views, lacking the intellectual bravely to face the real facts. He continues to use old ideological dogma from the time of his communist rule, describing the Albanians as a "national minority," Of so-called Albanian boycotts of Serbia and Yugoslavia and regarding other important issues characterizing the Albanian-Serb conflict over Kosovo.

The author calls the Republic of Kosovo a phantom (state), ignoring the fact that it has become a reality that is deeply rooted in the collective consciousness of the Albanian people as a national program and national strategy. Following the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, using their legitimate right to self-determination, in a democratic manner the Albanians created their own state, which grows stronger and a more realistic fact by the day. B. Jovic is again returning to the theses that the constitutional amendments of 1989 were necessary and that they had not then jeopardized the existing autonomy of Kosovo. The people in Kosovo, and wider, know well that the changes were made unconstitutionally and irrespective of the will of the Albanian people.

During the changes, the presidency of SFRY (chaired by Jovic) declared a state of emergency in Kosovo, and the changes were effected without the agreement of the Kosovo provincial assembly. On the day of the decision on the constitutional amendments strong police and military forces had surrounded the Kosovo assembly, while civilians and police who were not members took part in the proceedings of assembly. The decision they made was not valid, because it did not receive the support of the majority in the Kosovo assembly.

Jovic's conclusion that the constitutional amendments did not seriously influence the position of Kosovo, not only is not true, but it is funny if observed from today's perspective. The unconstitutional amendments not only terminated the political subjectivity of Kosovo, but also represented (as some politicians and theorists then noted it) the first step and the key for the disassembly and the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia.

The events that followed best confirm this fact. The unilateral approach to the issue of Kosovo shows that Jovic has learned nothing from the mistakes of the regime he served and that the bloody conflicts have not changed his nationalist approach to the Kosovo issue. Instead of one opinion regarding Kosovo, he should face the reality that Kosovo has been lost forever to Serbia and he should turn to the modalities of the peaceful separation of Kosovo and Serbia.

* Borisav Jovic Reply to Dr. Arsim Bajrami

I would like to say a few words about the issues tackled by Dr. Bajrami.

Let me start from his objection that by describing the ethnic Albanians as a national minority, I only show the extent of my "adherence to the obsolete ideological dogmas of my communist past."

I trust Mr. Bajrami is aware that our differences arise from our different approaches to the matters of state and not ideology. His referring to "ideological dogmas" and "communist past" serves only to mask the fact that he is opposed to the country he lives in and desires the secession of Kosovo, a move that has not been met with the approval of the international community.

The Albanians living in Serbia are a national minority, whether Mr. Bajrami likes it or not. They have a home country -- Albania. All national groups living outside their respective home countries are officially described by the international community as "national minorities." In line with their position as such, the Albanians, like any other national minority, are entitled to a certain level of rights guaranteed by both the international community and our country. The fact that Mr. Bajrami has a different view on the issue, brings him in conflict with the international community and his own country as well.

The second thesis of Mr. Bajrami is that the Albanians in Serbia have the right to self-determination, and that they had exercised that right to create their own national state -- the Republic of Kosovo -- which, according to him, "is a reality."

If national minorities were allowed by international standards to exercise their right to self-determination in the manner advocated by Mr. Bajrami, that is, to create their own states by secession, chaos would ensue throughout the world. This is why the international community does not support and does not allow minority issues to be resolved in such a manner.

The obsession with the Republic of Kosovo "which is a reality," indirectly explains why Mr. Bajrami turns a blind eye to all the rights ethnic Albanians do enjoy in Serbia, as mentioned in my contribution to this dialogue, but which they refuse to exercise. He is not interested in these rights; all that he is interested in is secession, and the creation of a new Albanian state within Serbia proper.

Mr. Bajrami's third thesis states that the 1989 constitutional amendments were not passed with proper constitutional and democratic procedures and that they were completely arbitrary. The amendments to the Federal Constitution were adopted by all legislatures of the then existing republics and autonomous provinces of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and, separately, by the SFRY Federal Parliament (in regard to amendments to the Federal Constitution which were to provide for subsequent amendments to the Serbian Constitution). The amendments to the Serbian Constitution were adopted by the Serbian Legislature and the legislatures of both autonomous provinces (Kosovo and Vojvodina). Bajrami's claim that the decision by the Kosovo Legislature was irregular, is completely unfounded: after a democratic debate which lasted one whole day, in a public vote, the majority of representatives voted for the amendments, while only 12 representatives voted against.

Mr. Bajrami does not deny that the amendments in question were preceded by a mass exodus of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija, under pressure from Albanians who had taken advantage of and abused their constitutional position. We should not waste any more time over the fact that Kosovo had indeed been deprived of its state-like authority -- normally, provinces are not entitled to such prerogatives, which are reserved solely for states -- but it did retain its autonomy and the degree of civil and minority rights guaranteed by the highest European standards.

I can only advise Mr. Bajrami that he should try to understand that his idea of Kosovo and Metohija seceding from Serbia is an illusion which leads into an even deeper self-isolation for ethnic Albanians, that the international community is also against such a resolution for Kosovo, and that the ethnic Albanians should seek to resolve their problems in the country to which they belong.

* Mario Batinovic, New York.

Mr. Borisav Jovic was a founder and a pillar of the policy aimed at creating a Greater Serbia, so his article on the constitutional position of Kosovo should be seen as a reply of the authorities to the legitimate demands of the Kosovo Albanians. As before, he blames the victims (the Albanian people) for the situation. I was prompted to answer by his repeated claims that we, who are abroad, see a wrong picture of Kosovo because we don't know the facts. Luckily, many of us have good memory.

Four items in the article are worth mentioning; First, Mr. Jovic says that Kosovo has autonomy in the Constitution of Serbia, but is not using it. Later he stresses that autonomy was revoked in 1989, to stop the "massive exodus" of Serbs and Montenegrins. How can Kosovo have autonomy if it was revoked? Mr. Jovic has his own idea of autonomy. He should explain better what it implies. Why does he think that the Albanians in Kosovo should use the new autonomy, if the one from 1974 was revoked? Why does he think Albanians should respect the authorities, when they revoked the old autonomy and replaced it with a new one? What have Albanian people gained with the "new" autonomy?

Second, writing about the 1981-1989 period, Mr. Jovic justifies the withdrawal of autonomy with Albanian rebellions. I would like him to list only three cases of rebellion in that period. Maybe he knows what most of us do not? Or maybe our ideas of a rebellion differ significantly? Or maybe every action of the Albanian population in the period was treated as a rebellion, which is completely beyond any rational thought? Let Mr. Jovic tell us what "rebellion" of the Albanian people in Kosovo in 1989 can be compared to the classic armed rebellion of the Serb population in Croatia, to which he, as a member of the Presidency of the former state Yugoslavia, remained deaf and dumb?

Third, Mr. Jovic writes about the massive "exodus" of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo, insinuating that they were driven out by the Albanian population. Numbers indicate the extent of that exodus. It is estimated that today around nine percent of the Kosovo population (of two million) are Serbs. In the 80-es their share was 13 percent, so in the period 50,000-60,000 left Kosovo. But many left for purely economic reasons, and some sold their homes and land to Albanians, cashing in on their Serbian patriotism, selling "hearths of centuries" for German marks.

The autonomy was revoked because of the exodus of Serbs, says Mr. Jovic. Was the process stopped? According to latest information, the case is the opposite.

Fourth, Mr. Jovic directly blames Albanian leaders for undermining the system and the non-functional authorities, continuing the tradition of dividing peoples, started with the labeling of "good" and "bad" Croats, now continued with "good" and "bad" Albanians.

Finally, he blames others, describing himself as the source of right solutions. Like his mentor, he's ready to shoot in all directions to remain in power. For the collapse of the system that he cleverly built, he is willing to blame members of a nation whose historic destiny is tied to the Serbian people.

Mr. Jovic's policy learned no lessons from the disintegration of former Yugoslavia. Instead of accusing, killing and destroying, he should realize that the problem of Kosovo doesn't belong only to Serbs, but to Albanians as well. Relations of Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo are beyond the point where the problem could be solved by greater autonomy of Albanians, or even with a status of a republic within FR Yugoslavia. It's time that Mr Jovic's policy realizes that the only option of survival for the Albanian people is their own state.

(Mr. Batinovic's original reaction was too long, so we relaesed a compressed version. We kindly reqest readers to limit their reactions to 35-40 lines)

* Borisav Jovic Reply to Mr. Mario Batinovic, New York

Basic good manners require a proper introduction from someone wishing to participate in a discussion. Mr. Batinovich neither did that, nor did his text represent him particularly well.

Mr. Batinovic claims that I wrote something that actually is not in my article. He says I claimed that the Kosovo autonomy was annulled in 1989, making him wonder how then can Kosovo still enjoy it. I can only suggest to Mr. Batinovic to read the article several more times, and if it still remains unclear, then the problem is in him, not the article.

In a similar fashion, Mr. Batinovic generously wishes to give away the Serb territory of Kosovo and Metohija, to secede it in favor of the Albanian minority. If he wants to give territories and perform secessions, let him do it in his own country, if he can. The U.S. probably have areas with Mexican, Indian or other ethnic majorities, where he can fight for his generous views. It is not polite to give away what belongs to others; not only is it not polite, it is a criminal act.

I must remind Mr. Batinovic that not even great powers, including the country he lives in, support the secession of Kosovo and Metohija. I think it is pointless to continue this debate with Mr. Batinovic and defend the stands of his own country from him. It would be much better if he would discuss this directly with it.

* Mario P. Batinovic

I would like to thank Koha and Beta for providing the space and Mr. Jovic for his reply. To avoid misinterpretation, Mr. Jovic wrote that, and I quote, the Constitution of Serbia, "has taken and transferred to the Republic of Serbia only those prerogatives that belong exclusively to the state," etc. Further, he explains that the legislative, executive and judicial responsibilities had been taken from the provinces. High school textbooks in Serbia say that legislative, executive and judicial authority are the characteristics of autonomous authority. Regardless of the fact that the province of Kosovo has had that authority taken from it, Mr. Jovic concludes, and I quote, "According to the serbian Constitution they are autonomous provinces."

Let me explain this kind of autonomy: the Kosovo Albanians have been left with authority that lacks power, not only at Yugoslav and Serbian level, but also in the province itself, which is tantamount to the political annexation of Kosovo. the only autonomy left for the Albanians in the one in their homes, yards, and to a certain extent in the streets. Maybe that is what Mr. Jovic had in mind. It is true that the annexation was carried out with the blessings of the (federal state), as a concession to Serbia. It is also true that the Kosovo assembly had voted for a change of its constitutional position, but it is also true that that had been carried out under a military siege and under pressure and that on that day Serbs from the streets who had suddenly become deputies had voted in the assembly.

Mr. Jovic concluded that the colonization of Kosovo had actually started as the result of the will of the Kosovo assembly. It is true that the West is against the secession of Kosovo, but not because it believes Kosovo to be a part of Serbi, but rather out of fear of greater conflicts breaking out. However the West is flexible; what it refuses today, it accepts tomorrow. remember the statement of former U.S. Secretary of state James Baker before the breakup of the former Yugoslavia that the U.S. does not support the secession of the republics, or the statement made by former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1994, that U.S. troops have no intention of going to Bosnia.

Soon the West too will realize that the Albanian people in Kosovo have a right to their own state. In any case it that same principle of the right of every nation to state that Mr. Jovic wholeheartedly embraced in the case of the Serbs from Knin Krajina. does he suffer from selective amnesia? why would that principle be guaranteed for the Serbs, but denied the Albanians in Kosovo?

If the Albanian people in Kosovo really want their own state, that much we have learned from history, nothing can stop it, no police or army, even if it be Serb.

As far as the Mexicans and other groups in the U.S. are concerned, they have no reason to wish to break away because they enjoy greater political and rights than in their own states, or the Albanians in the in today's democratic Serbia. There is no brutal policy such as yours to push them into war, let us recall - Serb policy in Kosovo not only does not care about the Albanians but also it does not care about the Serbs. All that is important is territory.

P.S. I would like to recall: my name is Mario Batinovic and I am writing this in New York. My racial, national, cultural or other identity, level of education, social status and similar are irrelevant for this debate.

Mario P. Batinovic

Mahmut Bakali

* Bogdan Petrovic, electronics engineer, Belgrade

Mr. Bakali's first point, that the Albanians in Kosovo are not, nor can they be a national minority, cannot persevere under serious criticism. The arguments for this are as follows: their numbers, the fact that they have always lived on that territory, the fact that in the former Yugoslavia they were the third largest national group, while now they are the second, and the fact that they represent almost half of the entire Albanian nation.

Mr. Bakali's quantitative criteria for treating the minority issue are also interesting: since 90 percent of the population is Albanian, they no longer can be considered a national minority. Therefore there exists a certain point (is it 60, 70 or 90 percent?) when national minorities outgrow that status. As far as I know international law and practice know not such criteria.

The Albanians in Kosovo, out of historic and real reasons, are not a recognized nation, but rather a minority, since they have a motherland. The state frontier was set following the Balkan wars. Besides Kosovo, there are many Albanians living in Greece, Macedonia and in Montenegro. According to Mr. Bakali's arguments, one would have to come to the conclusion that they too are a nation rather than a national minority. There fore I would ask him to please define the term minority.

While waiting for a reply, I must note that besides the quantitative, other arguments and criteria that define a nation, or a minority, can be applied to any minority in Europe. The exceptional numerical superiority of the Albanians in Kosovo is the key to the Kosovo issue.

After stating that the Albanians are not a minority, Mr. Bakali addresses the main issue for the Albanians: the right to self-determination. Since national minorities do not enjoy this right, therefore the Albanians in Kosovo are not a minority. At issue here is probably the most contested principle in international relations, which is in direct collision with the principle of the inviolability of state borders. Mr. Bakali knows this and he admits it. In order to extract himself from this cull de sac, he proposes some new concepts, inventiveness and procedures. From the text it can be seen that at issue is a republic within FRY, independent of Serbia.

Therefore, if Kosovo was to stay in some kind of Yugoslavia, but outside Serbia, both the right to the self-determination of the Albanians and the principle of territorial integrity would be satisfied. That integrity is not entrenched in the Dayton accords but rather in international agreements.

An analysis of the proposed resolution shows: the Albanians should receive the right to self-determination, they should be given a republic independent of Serbia within FRY. At the same time since the integrity of FRY is recognized in the Dayton accords, during the further developments, thanks to some other agreement, it will no longer exist, all in keeping with the right to self-determination, as seen in the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. An independent Kosovo, cleansed of Serbs, becomes a part of Albania. I would like Mr. Bakali to prove to me that it is not so.

The resolution of the problems in Kosovo will be dictated by the numerical superiority of the Albanians. The Albanian side does not have any real arguments, only brute force - the demographic force of Kosovo. That is unavoidable and it will significantly influence a resolution. More complex and logical arguments put forth by Mr. Bakali can only serve as trimmings for this brutal argument possessed by the Albanians. Instead ,one should honestly say: we make up 90 percent of the population and we want independence. Can you and do you want to oppose this? How do you intend to do it?

Bogdan Petrovic, electronics engineer, Belgrade (Mr. Petrovic's comments were compressed)

Zoran Glusscchevich

* Samuelson

I live in mid america Nebraska I am 47 years old and am having trouble trying to understand the comparison of Kosovo to Texas and California because I do not see the US military fighting with the people in Fort Worth or Los Angeles I don't see thousands of people fleeing for there life to Mexico such as those reported fleeing Kosovo .

Even as far north as we live from Mexico there are families that speak only spanish in are community and we coexist with respect for each others beliefs and traditions , I only hope Yugoslavia can bring Kosovo to her heart and live with differences rather than bloodshed.

Samuelson

Yllber Hysa

* Laura Devlin

I enjoyed the article by Yllber Hysa, which explained the psychology of the serbs in kosova for me, and without resorting to hysterical name calling. As an outsider, I realise the problem is very complex, in a way I think it is similar to the attitude people have towards what is happening in northern ireland, when they realise it is not simply a case of black and white, goodies on one side, and bad on the other. I would like to know what Yllber Hysa's ethnic background is, not knowing enough about the situation, I found it hard to guage from his article.

Laura Devlin