>At 09:04 10/04/99 Jim Heartfield wrote in reply to DL:
>
>>I certainly would not want to leave out of
>>account the prior hostility Serbs felt towards the Albanian Kosovars.
TO which Chris replies
>This covers up the fact that Milosevic won the election on a platform of
>confronting the Kosovans, and in 1989 he removed their autonomy. This
>apologises for his chauvinism, by making out it was the responsibility of
>western imperialists.
And then adds
>
>It is in surprising contrast to the article from LM that Jim H forwarded
>entitled "History of Kosovo" which details Serb oppression of the Albanians.
You are surprised, because your own thinking is one-sided and dogmatic and presume that everyone else thinks the same way. But my argument against Western intervention does not need to whitewash the repressive measures undertaken by the Milosevich regime. I only have to tell the truth, that the greatest reactionary influence in the region is Western intervention. So all of Chris' Petrocelli-like questions 'do you deny?' etc etc are pretty redundant. A great deal of the war atrocity stories have already show to be fictitious, but even if they were true, the dynamic of political and economic development in the Balkans is entirely contingent upon what happens in the West - a fact of life since the dismantling of the Soviet bloc.
>In the short term confronting fascism makes it more difficult for liberals
>in that country, true. How does one confront fascism successfully? By
>appeasing it?
I'm sorry, but like most people here, I don't see how this relates to the events in the Balkans, since there is no fascist power at work there. I see that you want to relive the patriotic events of the Second World War, but even there you are mistaken, since your question 'should it be appeased' assumes that you are in charge of what Western imperialism wants to do. You are not. You are only cheering from the sidelines, and forcing the events of 1999 into the template of the 'people's war' of 1939.
>Do you deny the accuracy of comments that the Serbs told the Albanians in
>Kosovo that they were looking forward to the NATO attacks so that they
>could sort the Albanians out? Do you deny that the speed of departure of
>the deportees suggests a prior plan and not just that the occupying forces
>had edgy nerves?
>
Yes. This sounds like grade 'a' bullshit propaganda to me. It is child's play to retrospectively discover a 'plan' that indicates that your victims are really planning to attack you, so disguising the fact that you attacked them. This 'plan' is about as plausible as the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. I am surprised that you are so naive as to swallow such twaddle. You probably believed the story about the IRaqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, too.
Chris quotes me saying
>>I am a bit surprised that you have not interested yourself more in the
>>fascinating political experiment that has been undertaken in Bosnia. Now
>>under the rule of the OSCE, UN and Nato, its constitution contains some
>>truly intriguing features.
>
>
>I doubt if either of us is too surprised that I have not interested myself
>more.
Well, I am surprised. You see I thought that you wanted to see an international force in Kosovo. And, taking you at your word in your pretended concern over the fate of the Kosovans, I assumed that you would have been interested in what the model of international rule was. I see now that you are wholly uninterested in what kind of solution is imposed upon the Balkan people, as long as your blood-lust against Milosevic is sated (how many civilian lives would that take, we wonder).
Chris then quotes my extensive description of the dictatorial powers of the UN High Representative, the absolute liberty enjoyed by Nato troops in Bosnia, and the complete control of the Bosnian central bank by the IMF. TO which Chris replies, bizarrely,
>I am not impressed by Jim H's adulation of bourgeois forms of democracy.
But Chris, I did not describe the imposition of bourgeois democracy in the Balkans to praise it, but to show that it was entirely hostile to the right of those very people that it claimed to be defending.
>As
>we all know from our direct experience, quite apart from theory, the degree
>to which any constitution gives democracy is very limited in the sense of
>power for individuals to change their lives.
So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter that the constitution of Bosnia says that it is illegal for any citizen of Bosnia to head the central bank? You think it is ok that candidates in elections can be arbitrarily disqualified by the occupying military power. You really are a hard bastard Chris, a first class imperialist war-monger. Full marks to you for your utter indifference to the rights of the very people that you pretend you are arguing for.
>I find Jim H'a use of emotive words like "bastard" and "dictatorial"
>disingenuous.
Why? It is a bastard constitution. As Michel Chossudovsky rightly says, given that it is not open to amendment by the very people that it supposedly defends the right of, it is not really a constitution at all, but a regulatory system that is dictatorial, as is its operation. I realise that it is in your interests to turn away from these unpalatable truths, not least because this is the very system of government that you would wish to impose upon Kosovo.
>He also knows as a marxist or former marxist (I do not understand the full
>reasons why LM changed its name from Living Marxism) that a state is a
>machine for stabilising society in the interests of the ruling class, by
>force.
Yes, indeed. But normally that analysis is not understood to be an apologia for the oppressive machinery of the ruling class, in this case a ruling class that is not Bosnian at all, but American, German and British, lording it over the Balkan people with dictatorial powers.
> If any sort of state structure was to be possible in Bosnia after
>the genocide there, some force had to be imposed. The provisions are
>clearly ones to take controversial powers away from the domination of one
>communal group against another.
Yes, clearly for the dictatorship of Western Capital to hold sway over the Bosnians, their rights must be continually abused and they themselves denounced as genocidal. But in all seriousness Chris, what about the Bosnian muslims? Are they being excluded from political control over their bank to save them from genocide?
>
>They also give class dominance to finance capital, as in many western
>states. But if he thought that Bosnia should have been a socialist state,
So, this is you then Chris, fighting to re-establish the domination of finance capital. Good to know what side you are on. I suppose that it would indeed have been a fond hope that Britain, Germany and America would have imposed a socialist state. However, I don't remember anyone saying that Bosnia would be made into a colony dominated by the Western powers, with all political and civil rights suspended - at least nobody who was supporting Western Intervention that is.
>
>Jim H wants peace on the Balkan aggressors terms, not just out of
>helplessness and indecision. He clearly feels a commitment to support the
>claims of Serb nationalism versus Albanian nationalism.
Of course it is a lot easier to argue against an imaginary opponent who says just what you think he should say than a real one. I certainly do not support Serb nationalism. As you noted it was me who posted the historical background of Serb chauvinism against the Albanians of Kosovar. My position is crystal clear and in no need of caricature: the main threat to peace in the Balkans is the West.
(Incidentally, just so we know what's being said here, do you really think that the Kosovars are Albanian nationalists? Does that mean that they want to be a part of the Albanian nation, a demand that, so far, we have not heard.) -- Jim heartfield