> 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
This gives a lot to Milo. Do you disbelieve the UNHCHR on Serb activities prior to the NATO action?
> *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.
Maybe all the reports are bogus. It's happened before. I'm not persuaded of that right now. Whatever you want to call the Serb actions in Kosovo, from my standpoint they deserve a sharp response.
> >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.
Milo is legitimate in Serbia, but not in Kosovo. I agree the KLA is still a question mark, but in light of what I've heard, right now I'm inclined to give the KLA the benefit of the doubt.
> 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?
see above
> > 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?>
It is not expressed in racial terms, least of all by any lefts who are at all supportive of the NATO action. That's a crock.
> > 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.
This came up a little while back and I let it go by. One can support the idea of self-determination without granting a blank check to an authentic national movement, or to a democratically elected majority. Majorities of either type can be tyrannical, and the exercise of tyranny forfeits them any rights. There is a legitimate, narrow criterion for forfeiting the right to self-determination.
> >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).
A while back when I first mentioned peace-keeping, I made clear that any external force would need to protect everyone from anyone who was a threat to them. This could mean the indefinite postponement of Kosovar self-determination. If so, too bad; the first principle is protecting innocent life.
> 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?
At least temporarily, sure if it was necessary and if Kosovars supported that. Alternatively, they could just merge with Albania.
> > 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!
Serb ceasefire equals Serb attack under present circumstances. I addressed in my response to Brett, so I won't repeat it.
> > Stopping the bombing altogether
> >would give him zero reason to negotiate.
>
> Isn't this the definition of gunboat diplomacy?
Yes but I've said bombing isn't enough.
> > 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.
"NATO sovereignty" is a non-sequitur. NATO control as an accessory to movement towards self-determination is the point.
You evidently have some analysis of a NATO grand scheme which has taken us to this pass. Others have been mentioned: EU control of the Danube; appropriation of a vast mining complex in the province; securing of an Eastern front against an eventual resurgence of Russian bolshevism; military control of the Balkans; a gambit for Caspian oil; etc. Tell us yours, and see how it fares under the tender mercies of list members.
In response to my point about human rights observers of some type, you said:
> Would that be the kind of monitors that Scott Ritter has described to us
> as American spies?
Oy. Things seem really hopeless. All I can ask is, in your vision of the world, is there any relief from routine outbreaks of barbarism and mass slaughter? If not, then LM is DM.
mbs