- I believe this is the statement which some people have been looking for a translation of. P.Bourdieu is one of the signatories.
Statement by French intellectuals in Le Monde, 31 March 1999
[Translated by Joanna Misnik]
We do not accept the following false dilemmas:
Either support the NATO intervention or support the reactionary
policies of the Serb authorities in Kosovo? The NATO bombing raids,
which made necessary the withdrawal of OSCE personnel from Kosovo,
created more favourable conditions for a ground offensive by Serb
paramilitary forces, rather than preventing it; they encourage the
worst forms of ultra-nationalist Serb desire for revenge against the
Kosovar population; they consolidate
the dictatorial power of Slobodan Milosevic which has muzzled the
independent media and succeeded in uniting round it a national
consensus which must, on the contrary, be broken if a path to peaceful
and political negotiations on Kosovo is to be opened up.
Either accept as the sole possible basis for negotiation the
"peace plan" drawn up by the governments of the United States and of
the European Union or bomb Serbia? No long-term solution to a major
internal political conflict
can be imposed from outside by force. It is not true that "every
attempt was made" to find a solution and an acceptable framework for
negotiations. The Kosovar negotiators were forced to sign a plan
which they had initially rejected after they were given reason to
believe that NATO would become involved on the ground in defence of
their cause. This is a lie which fosters a total illusion: not one of
the governments which have supported the NATO
air strikes are willing to wage war against the Serb regime to impose
independence for Kosovo. The strikes will perhaps weaken part of the
Serbian military machine, but they will not weaken the mortars which
are being used to destroy Albanian houses, nor the para-military
forces which are executing UCK (Kosovo LiberationArmy) fighters.
NATO is not the only, nor above all the best, foundation on which
to base an agreement. It would have been possible to find the
conditions for a multinational police force (including Serbs and
Albanians) within the framework of the OSCE which would oversee the
application of a transitional agreement. It would above all have been
possible to enlarge the framework of the negotiations by including
the Balkan states destabilised by this conflict: Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Macedonia, Albania... One could at the same time have defended the
Kosovars' right to self-government of the province and protected the
Serb minority in Kosovo; one could have sought to respond to the
aspirations and fears of the different peoples concerned through links
of cooperation and agreements between neighbouring states, with
Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania... No such attempt was
made.
We do not accept the arguments with which it has been sought to
legitimate the NATO intervention:
It is not true that the NATO air strikes will prevent the
spreading of the conflict to the region, to Macedonia or
Bosnia-Herzegovina: they will on the contrary encourage this. They
will further destabilise Bosnia-Herzegovina
and no doubt endanger the multinational forces responsible for
enforcing the fragile Dayton Agreement. They have already fanned the
flames of conflict in Macedonia.
It is not true that NATO is protecting the Kosovar population or
their rights.
It is not true that the bombing of Serbia is opening the way to a
democratic government there. The governments of the European Union and
of the United States perhaps hoped that this demonstration of force
would force Slobodan Milosevic to sign their plan. Does this reveal on
their part naivete or hypocrisy? Whatever the
case, this policy is leading not only to a political impasse, but also
a legitimatisation of the role of NATO outside any framework of
international control.
For this reason, we demand:
an immediate end to these bombings;
the organisation of a Balkans conference in which
representatives of the states and all the national communities in
these states would participate;
the defence of the principle of the right of peoples to
self-determination, on the sole condition that this right is not
obtained to the detriment of another people and through the ethnic
cleansing of territory;
a debate in parliament on the future participation of France
in NATO.
Pierre Bourdieu
Pauline Boutron
Suzanne de Brunhoff
Nolle Burgi-Golub
Jean-Christophe Chaumeron
Thomas Coutrot
Daniel Bensaid
Daniel Durant
Robin Foot
Ana-Maria Galano
Philip Golub
Michel Husson
Paul Jacquin
Marcel-Francis Kahn
Bernard Langlois
Ariane Lantz
Pierre Lantz
Florence Lefresne
Catherine Levy
Jean-Philippe Milesy
Patrick Mony
Aline Pailler
Catherine Samary
Rolande Trempe
Pierre Vidal-Naquet