victim of the aggression, have been difficultrnsince the day of the former Yugoslavia’srnbreakup. On the one hand,rnCroat President Franjo Tudjman hasrnbeen pushed by the international communityrnto negotiate with his Serbianrncounterparts; on the other, he has oftenrnbeen suspected by some in the foreignrnmedia of cutting secret deals with Serbiarnat the expense of the Bosnian state. Thisrnexercise in international “legal equidistance”rnmay render difficult the implementationrnof peace in neighboringrnBosnia, or for that matter, may be evenrnthe cause of another crisis in the Balkans.rnMoreover, it may seriously endanger thernmission of the present NATO-led IFORrnforces in Bosnia-Herzegovina.rnThe war which began in 1991 as a warrnof aggression by the communist YugoslavrnArmy against unarmed Croatiarnwas also prolonged by the lack of unanimityrnamong superpowers. One mayrnsav that the lack of consensus amongrnwodd powers prolonged the Balkans conflict.rnTo now shrug off the war tragedy byrnlumping all “warring parties” in the samernlegal basket becomes an alibi for previousrnpolitical indecision. It was to a great extentrnthe “Balkanization” of the internationalrncommunity which accounted forrnthe tragic consequences on the Bosnianrnkilling fields.rnTomislav Sunk works as a counselor atrnthe Croatian Embassy in Denmark; he isrnthe author o/^Titoism and Dissidence:rnStudies in the History and Dissolutionrnof Communist Yugoslavia (Peter Lang).rnTECHNOLOGYrnBattling Cyberhaternby Thomas E. Woods, Jr.rnThe conventional wisdom regardingrnthe Internet appears to havernchanged practically overnight. Oncernchampioned as a wonderful Information-rnAge tool to “empower the individual,”rnthe net is now more likelv to be denouncedrnas an iniquitous network ofrnright-wing conspiracy theorists and formerrnLuftwaffe pilots.rnI would be the last person to peddle arngospel of salvation through technology,rnas we hear all too often from the Tofflers.rnBut it is important to acknowledge thatrnthe Internet and the Wodd Wide Webrnhave been a tremendous boon forrnright-wing activists across the country.rnAn Anti-Defamation League (ADL)rnspokesman was correct to remark thatrnthe net has made “a radical change inrntheir ability to reach out and organize.”rnIndeed, no other svstem could havernlinked up so many thousands of peoplernacross the country who are deeply alienatedrnfrom the permanent regime inrnWashington but have no wa’ to communicaternwith one another. Leaders ofrngrassroots movements nationwide havernbeen able to make valuable contacts withrnlike-minded men and women, and haverngained access through the World WidernWeb to a virtually limitless source ofrninformation of interest to right-wingrnactivists.rnIf past experience is any guide, wernshould not be surprised if efforts to censorrnthe Internet begin to grow. We recentlyrnwitnessed the fanaticism withrnwhich liberals pushed the so-called Fairnessrnin Broadcasting Act, a measure thatrnattempted to force left-wing radio talkrnshows on the benighted Middle Americansrnwho have made right-w ing radio sornspectacularly popular. For every RushrnLimbaugh, there would have to be arnMario Cuomo.rnThe left can hardly be expected to gorneasier on the Internet than it did on thernrelatively innocuous Limbaugh, and indeedrnsentiment in fa’or of federal regulationrnhas already begun to spreadrnamong Washington elites. The pretextrnfor massive federal oversight of the net isrnchild pornography, but alarm bellsrnshould go off every time Janet Renornclaims to be looking out for the welfarernof children. We have learned all too wellrnwhat that means.rnTo our north, the process of criminalizingrncv’berhate is already under vvav, andrnwithout the appeals to the well-being ofrnchildren that have disguised federal interventionrnin the United States. LastrnJune, representatives of Canada’s SimonrnWiesenthal Center demanded legislationrnthat would define the Internet as arnform of broadcasting, and thus place itrnunder the purview of the Canadian Radio-rnTeleision and TelecommunicationsrnCommission (CRTC). More specifically,rnthe Wiesenthal Center called for legislationrnthat would criminalize the promotionrnof hatred via computer media.rn”Hatred,” like “diversity” and “sensitivity,”rnis a former English word that hasrnbeen transformed by the Orwellian doublespeakrnof the therapeutic state, andrnwhose broad scope appears to includernany political position to the right of BobrnDole.rnUnder the Wiesenthal plan, the governmentrnwould not itself censor the netrndirectly. Instead, it would make netrnproviders liable for the content of the datarnthat passes through their system. Onernobserver rightly noted that such an arrangenrentrnwould be akin to holding Bellrnresponsible for the content of conversationsrnthat take place over their phonernlines. Nevertheless, Canadian public officialsrnhave proven sympathetic to thernidea. In August, the Canadian Chiefs ofrnPolice Association called for governmentrncontrol of the Internet in order to crackrndown on “hate speech” and seditiousrnspeech. Herb Gray, Canada’s SolicitorrnGeneral, suggested that one solutionrn”might involve some type of internationalrnconvention or agreement where countriesrnwould come together to control thernInternet.” Such a strategy might be ablernto “halt the electronic transmission ofrnhate literature into Canada via the Internet.”rnOn the bright side, there is reason tornbelieve that any prospective federal regulationrnof the Internet is already too late.rnThe net has already facilitated too manyrnpersonal friendships and institutionalrnconnections among thousands of peoplernand organizations that had never knownrnof each other’s existence before goingrnonline. And with encoding programsrnlike PGP widely available even now tornensure telecommunication privacy, regulationrnefforts may indeed be futile.rnUndaunted, the FBI and the JusticernDepartment have proposed the installationrnof a device called the “clipper chip”rnill every telephone and computer, whichrnwould make possible an enormous andrnunprecedented program of governmentrneavesdropping. This is all to fight terrorism,rnof course.rnBut the American public is not thatrnstupid. Such obnoxious efforts to monitorrnthe acti’ities of law-abiding citizensrncan only exacerbate the very alienationrnfrom the present regime that led to rightwingrnactivism on the Internet in the firstrnplace.rnThomas E. Woods, Jr., is a doctoral candidaternin history at Columbia University.rnMAY 1996/49rnrnrn