<<I don't think Russia is equivalent to the UN, the EU, or even
Nato as a plausible guarantor of justice.>>
The UN did not authorize this war. The EU isn't waging this war. NATO is fighting this war. If you believe NATO is a uniquely "plausible guarantor of justice," in light of what its dominant power has done in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, the Middle East, etc. you are just spouting platitudes. In all those cases, the U.S. is responsible for or directly complicit in atrocities on an incomparably higher scale than what's happened in Kosovo
> 30,000 Russian troops occupy Southeastern Turkey for 3 years,
run its
> government, select its leaders, manage its economy, with free
> range over the rest of the country if need be -- all to "end
the suffering," of course. >>
<<I don't think this is an accurate rendering of Nato's interest.
I don't believe Nato wants Yugoslavia, whether to run its govt,
select its leaders, or manage its economy. Nor do I believe Nato
is trying to teach anybody a lesson or set an example. It mainly
wants an end to embarrassing bloodletting and deportation in
Kosova, mostly for reasons of regional stability.>>
Max, read the Rambouillet agreement. This is not my interperetation -- it is spelled out directly. The supreme political authority in Kosovo is to be the CIM (commander of inplementation mission) with full powers to overrule local decisions. The supreme military authority is to be COMKFOR (commander of Kosovo force) who is entitled to use all necessary force. The economy is to be managed on "free-market" principles -- again, Rambouillet's language, not mine.
> No negotiations, just an ultimatum: sign or be bombed.
> After all, you can't negotiate with those butchers.
<<Nor do I think this captures the present or past stance of Nato,
e.g., swallow this whole or be bombed.>>
Max, I don't think you really know what NATO's stance has been. Madeleine Albright, 2/21/99: "We insist on nothing less than a complete agreement, including a NATO-led force." That has been the excruciatingly consistent position of the U.S. government from Day 1. If you disagree, I'm afraid you're simply misled. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.
> Offered these choices, what would the Turks do? What would the
> *Americans* do? Would the Kurds be better off? Would
> we dismiss concerns about sovereignty as a smokescreen to
distract from
> the human rights abuses?
<<The Turks would obviously resist, and Nato would defend it since Turkey is in Nato, but that isn't particularly relevant. This is too fantastic a scenario to play out much further.
As for the Kurds, I would be interested -- abstracting from your scenario -- in whether *they* thought they'd be better off. And no, I wouldn't care about sovereignty in the face of human rights abuses.>>
Why is this too fantastic a scenario? IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN KOSOVO! The only thing fantastic about it is that the Russians know they are too weak to impose such an ultimatum on a NATO country.
As for the Kurds, I would suggest they would not be better off -- because the Turks would regard such hostile actions from Russia as a sign they ought to start solving their little Kurdish problem once and for all. Just as the Serbs have done.
Perhaps some Kurds would take pleasure in seeing their longtime tormentors come in for some heavy bombing. Perhaps they would let that vindictive pleasure outweigh their distress at seeing more Kurds killed, more villages destroyed, etc. That would be understandable.
But why do you approve of that kind of bloodlust? Aren't those just the kind of destructive impulses that well-intentioned, friendly outside parties -- like you and me -- are supposed to help dissipate, through good-faith mediation, diplomacy, compromise?
I swear, Cockburn has it right about these Progressive wars.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sawicky at epinet.org [SMTP:sawicky at epinet.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 3:56 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Question for Max
>
> > Max, I wonder what you think would happen if Russia
> > drew up a similar
> > "peace plan" for Turkey and its Kurdish population?
>
> I don't think Russia is equivalent to the UN, the EU, or even
> Nato as a plausible guarantor of justice.
>
> > 30,000 Russian troops occupy Southeastern Turkey for 3 years,
> run its
> > government, select its leaders, manage its economy, with free
> > range over the rest of the country if need be -- all to "end
> the suffering," of course. >>
>
> I don't think this is an accurate rendering of Nato's interest.
> I don't believe Nato wants Yugoslavia, whether to run its govt,
> select its leaders, or manage its economy. Nor do I believe Nato
> is trying to teach anybody a lesson or set an example. It mainly
> wants an end to embarrassing bloodletting and deportation in
> Kosova, mostly for reasons of regional stability.
>
> > No negotiations, just an ultimatum: sign or be bombed.
> > After all, you can't negotiate with those butchers.
>
> Nor do I think this captures the present or past stance of Nato,
> e.g., swallow this whole or be bombed.
>
[Seth Ackerman] > No negotiations, just an ultimatum: sign or be bombed.
> After all, you can't negotiate with those butchers.
Nor do I think this captures the present or past stance of Nato,
e.g., swallow this whole or be bombed.
[Seth Ackerman] > No negotiations, just an ultimatum: sign or be bombed.
> After all, you can't negotiate with those butchers.
Nor do I think this captures the present or past stance of Nato,
e.g., swallow this whole or be bombed.
>
> > In light of these considerations, ask yourself again:
> > Has the U.S. acted reasonably? Was Rambouillet done in good
> faith?
> > Were the options for diplomacy exhausted?
>
> The U.S. has acted stupidly, from the standpoint of what I take
> to be its own interests. There were probably more options for
> diplomacy. That was then. Now I don't see much scope for
> diplomacy. I'd buy into almost any initiative that had some
> prospect of halting violence against Kosovars.
>
> mbs
>
>