But seriously, are the Kosova Albanians calling for independence? I thought they were calling for the creation of a UN Protectorate. I don't support the siting of British and American troops within Yugoslav territory.
In message <3.0.2.32.19990405182732.00d37ed8 at pop.gn.apc.org>, Chris
Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> writes
>This is merely describing the shift from an imperialist policy of
>appeasement of fascism to an imperialist policy of confronting fascism. It
>is not an argument for opposing the more progressive of those two policies.
Doug already commented on this, but it is characteristic of Chris' formalistic thinking. He says 'fascist' and hopes that it will substitute for an argument. Not surprisingly the Yugoslavs in turn denounce the West as 'Fascist', which if the word has any meaning at all is also innacurate, if understandable.
Yugoslavia is a small nation whose independence has been compromised by what once would have been called imperialist intervention. Denouncing nationalists of small nations as 'fascist' has been a staple of Western propaganda against the rights of small nations for many years.
I'm flattered that Chris thinks (see his other post) that LM magazine (which I write for) had a material impact upon the campaign of vilification against the Serbs. He should reflect on what it means to attribute a tendency to 'fascism' to an entire race.
In message <B03898593BC0D011A5B50060973D0F5CC0FFF5 at rlm-
exch1.rlmnet.com>, Carl Remick <cremick at rlmnet.com> writes
>Planning for what? Kosovo poses questions the left (such as it is!)
>can't duck. I would much prefer to focus on class-based issues
>exclusive of ethnicity, but the fact remains that potentially very
>dangerous types of nationalism -- and very dangerous responses to such
>nationalism -- are resurgent the world around. The left wasn't prepared
>to deal with World War I and tore itself apart. This time, the left
>*must* do better.
We could start with the basic component of internationalism: 'The Main Enemy Is At Home', ie fight the national chauvinism of your own country, before sounding off about 'dangerous types of nationalism' eslewhere. The most dangerous type of nationalism is the one promoted by Britain and the US - that these nations have a moral duty to bomb other nations into civilised behaviour.
In message <370895fa.1194452862 at mail.mindspring.com>, Margaret
<mairead at mindspring.com> writes
>Would that be such a hot idea, really? We got (and
>get) all the murderous wars when some regional warlord
>decides to try it on because, who knows, he might win
>and besides, it's other people doing the dying. With
>a single hegemon around, he can't win (tho this still
>isn't obvious to many) and possibly might have to do
>some dying himself. That seems no bad thing to me,
>even though it's not being applied very well because of
>who's running the US.
In Margaret's post there seems to ready an assumption that self- government is intrinsically untrustworthy, whereas American domination is generally benign. Aren't you too quick to excuse Western violence as merely contingent fact (who's in charge) whilst assuming that self- government in the rest of the world is always tipping over into 'warlordism'.
Quite apart from any logical argument, the facts just don't support that view. The most efficient butchers have been the very Western forces that you hope to make the solution to butchery. Tens of thousands killed in Somalia, hundreds in the Gulf war and subsequent sanctions, hundred killed and displaced by US trained Croatian troops in Krajina.
The West is not the solution, it is the problem.
-- Jim heartfield