[PEN-L:5345] The Nation on Kosovo - Pro-intervention

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

>Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:31:17 -0400
>To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu
>From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
>Subject: Re: [PEN-L:5345] The Nation on Kosovo - Pro-intervention
>In-Reply-To: <00f501be8782$2445b940$a2f48482 at nsn2>
>
>At 04:54 PM 4/15/99 -0400, Nathan quoted:
>>
>>
>>an opinion by Bogdan Denitch and Ian Williams
>>
>>-------------------------------
>>
>>The Nation, April 26, 1999
>>
>>    The Case Against Inaction
>>
>>    Sadly, some on the left are angrier about NATO's bombing
>>    than they are about the Serbian forces' atrocities, even though
>>    Milosevic's men have killed more in one Kosovan village than
>>    have all the airstrikes. Those who want an immediate NATO
>>    cease-fire owe the world an explanation of how they propose
>>    to stop and reverse the massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, in
>
>
>That is a faulty logic right from the start.  It is usually the proponents
of action, in this case bombing, who must demonstrate that their action
will work.  Otherwise, it is like uttering unsupporting opinion and then
saying "it is true, unless you prove it is false."  
>
>It is sad to see The Nation degenerating to the 'arguments' Rush Limaugh
style.
>
>
>
>>    light of Milosevic's history as a serial ethnic cleanser and
>>    promise-breaker. Arguments that the NATO action diminishes
>>    the stature of the United Nations are, to say the least, highly
>>    questionable. What could diminish the UN's stature more than
>>    Milosevic's successful defiance of more than fifty Security
>>    Council resolutions? Only last September, Resolution 1199,
>>    invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, ordered Belgrade to
>>    "cease all action by the security forces affecting the civilian
>>    population and order the withdrawal of security units used for
>>    civilian repression" in Kosovo. Only last October, Milosevic
>>    promised to reduce troop numbers in Kosovo, and his pledge
>>    was endorsed and given the force of international law by
>>    Security Council Resolution 1203. By the time the
>>    Rambouillet negotiations had started, he had more troops in
>>    Kosovo than ever before, and they had already begun their
>>    well-prepared campaign of ethnic cleansing.
>
>
>That is simply crap that does not hold water, unless of course one assumet
that Mr. Milosevic is Devil Incarnate who does his thing just for the heck
of it.  If we take into account the context, the disintegration of the
country, the upsurge of nationalistic sentiments it produced, the power
vaccum left by the weakening of the Soviet Empire - we may see Mr.
Milosevic's response as a quite rational attempt to shore up the crisis.
Sure, he made some grave  mistakes, including his over-reliance on military
power instead of negotiation and political settlement - but that is an
altogether different issue than being a Devil Incarnate, as the NATO
propaganda machine portrays him.
>
>As to Milosevic's undermining the UN, Israel has been consistently doing
it since 1960s.  Moreover, the Netanyachu government openly broke the Oslo
accord previously signed by the labor-led government, and openly defied any
effort of Clinton administration to resolve the issue.  I am yet to her our
fearless commander in chief to issue public condemnation of this blatant
disregard of the UN, it resoultions, and previously signed committments -
let alone a proposal to bomb Tel Aviv to compliance with the Oslo accord.
>
>
>
>>    World War II. The British court decisions on Gen. Augusto
>>    Pinochet show that, at last, politicians who murder cannot
>>    expect amnesty afterwards. Why should Slobodan Milosevic
>>    expect impunity as he carries out crimes against humanity?
>
>
>That twaddle is even beneath almighty Albright.  Did the UK went to Chile,
bombed civilian targets and demanded Pinochet surrender?  They simply
arrested him when he was visiting his trusted friend Margaret Thatcher.  So
where is the analogy?
>
>
>
>>
>>    Ideally, there should have been a UN Security Council vote
>>    endorsing military action, but China and Russia had made it
>>    plain that no matter what barbarities Milosevic committed
>>    they would veto any such resolution. Happily, most of the
>>    Council agreed that ethnic cleansing was not something that
>>    could be shielded behind a dubious claim of national
>>    sovereignty and soundly defeated, 12 votes to 3, a Russian
>>    draft resolution condemning the bombing. Only Namibia
>>    joined Beijing and Moscow. 
>
>
>That is still better than the US being the sole UN supporeter of Israeli
Zionist policies.
>
>Besides, even by our glorious leader's account, the death toll in Kosovo
during the year and a half before the NATO invasion was about 2,000 people.

 According to estimation I heard, most of those deaths resulted in clashes
and pacification campaigns, and about 700 of those were Serbs and other
Albanians killed by the separatists.  Brutal civil war - yes, but genocide?
>
>
>
>>    has miscalculated. Three of the major European
>>    players--Britain, France and Germany--under like-minded
>>    left-of-center governments have united in their determination
>>    to stop him, and they have popular majorities for doing so.
>
>
>
>It is really depressing to see The Nation editorial calling Clinton and
his European cronies "left-of-center" governments.  It sounds to me like
John Birch Society rant.
>
>
>Wojtek
>