Jim heartfield jim at
Wed Apr 7 14:05:24 PDT 1999

In message <001601be811e$148d7750$3bf246d1 at>, Max Sawicky <sawicky at> writes

>My answer is no, I wouldn't. The 'no bombs' portion of the
>slogan presumably has some effect on the U.S. policy, whereas the
>'no genocide' component has none on Milo. As such, the slogan is
>completely disingenuous. In this context, 'a plague on both your
>houses' is the Pontius Pilate solution, politically bankrupt, or
>morality without moorings.

Indeed, Max is right that there is no symmetry here, but not in the sense he means. Nato is the definitive cause of the recent events, the Milosevic regime merely reacting. The flaw in the slogan is that the US *is* bombing Yugoslavia, but the Yugoslav army *is not* engaged in a policy of genocide, making the second part redundant. The best positive influence that the West could have (and therefore that citizens of Western countries could have) is to withdraw, thereby decreasing the tensions in the region. 'No bombs' is the right slogan, the 'no genocide' part merely a concession to US propaganda.

>In Southeast Asia, the NLF and Ho Chi Minh had legitimacy in
>contrast to the succession of U.S. puppets. U.S. Vietnamese
>surrogates on the ground had zero political legitimacy.

Interesting. Milosevic was elected. The KLA was not. Who has legitimacy. Do you set aside the Yugoslav elections as unreal? Are the express wishes of the majority of the Yugoslav Federation void because they do not accord with the aim of making a province of that republic into a Nato colony?

> The U.S.
>anti-communist crusade, as such, was a clear mark against the
>U.S. case for the war.

But the US' anti-Serb crusade is OK? Why? Because it is expressed in simply racial terms?

> Milosevic is no Ho Chi Minh, and the eroding remnants of
>workers' self-management in Serbia are no comparison with the
>Vietnam that might have been (as opposed to the one that is,
>e.g., prostituting itself to Nike).

Granted. But national self-determination is not something that is only allowed to those who seek to fulfil our prescribed ideal of what a proper social policy should be - otherwise it would be a right in name only.

>I'd be happy to see a diplomatic solution if it gave Kovovars
>their land back, free of Serbian war criminals.

Is 'Serbian war criminals' here a euphemism for Serbs? Is it a demand that Kosovo be cleansed of its Serb population ( a result that the autonomous Kosovan leadership was well on the way to achieving, having reduced the Serb population from around thirty per cent in 1970 to around 15 per cent afterwards).

And when you say 'give the Kosovars their land back, does that mean under a UN protectorate - which would appear to be the central demand of the KLA?

> There is no
>indication presently of anything to negotiate about, since Milo
>gives no indication of interest in any such solution and indeed
>has little reason to have any.

This reminds me of today's headlines: "Serb ceasefire 'unacceptable', says Nato", as if a Serb attack would be preferable!

> Stopping the bombing altogether
>would give him zero reason to negotiate.

Isn't this the definition of gunboat diplomacy?

> But what is happening to Kosovo
>is sufficiently awful to justify some hope for an effective NATO
>intervention. Even a country dominated by a NATO garrison, Jim
>H., that provided some safety for Kosovars would be an
>improvement on the present situation.

Ah, so now we come to it. This is a demand for the extension of Nato sovereignty over this part of the Balkans. The Kosovans merely playing the part of justification for this extension of the West's military control.

>1. Self-determination for Kosovo, accomplished by armed NATO/KLA
>cleansing of Serb military and para-military IN Kosovo, w/no
>bombing of Serb civilian targets.

Self determination for NATO, in other words, accompanied by a cleansing of Kosovo's remaining Serb population.

>3. Free access to Kosovo by human rights monitors

Would that be the kind of monitors that Scott Ritter has described to us as American spies?

-- Jim heartfield

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list