>I was against the widening of the war to economic targets and I am against
>this further widening. But I would say to the many sincere, intelligent,
>informed , and committed left-wing subscbribers that it is not enough
>merely to oppose everything that western governments do as a matter of
>course.
Not as a matter of course, no.
>It is necessary to oppose them on the basis of a wider strategy
>challenging their claim to be the hegemonic arbiters of international
>justice
Which has been a theme here from about day two, no?
The fact that strategic bombing should ALWAYS be opposed - that it is categorically an obscenity - must also stay under notice. The quickest way to recognise insincerity is to look for how something is being done, I reckon. We saw this in Panama and we saw it in Somalia. I think it's true to say that strategic bombing is not only always indiscriminate killing (a truism to the point of banality), but that it is always a *lie* - and has been since about 1944. (Arguably the mushroom over Hiroshima was in a different class - Nagasaki certainly wasn't - but I could easily be swayed on Hiroshima, too.)
>and instead pinpoint the issues that would shape a juster concept
>of international world governance, which is being fashioned now, through
>such struggles.
You have to grasp the nettle and question NATO itself, Chris. It kills, and this is all it can do. The interests it project are those of the biggest capitals in the world, whose leading political/military power has killed more people than any other single power since WW2, and whose military might is absolutely irresistable (its only limit being how well its public relations people control the electorates). NATO functions not so much as a supplement to US might, but a hegemonic legitimiser for the deployment of that might. The US could easily have done all this killing and destroying on its own. NATO is just the uniform it has to wear to do it.
No NATO, no bombing - period.
I make this point partly because we still tend to underestimate the import of what's happening here. Tens of millions of good, peace-loving, humane people are supporting the slaughter and maiming of kiddies, commuters, patients, make-up artists, auto workers, ambulane drivers and refugees. THAT'S how powerful PR is. All these people might see a documentary a couple of years from now that'll make them gasp at themselves - but it'll be all over by then, and a new atrocity, dressed anew in ever-so-slightly different cladding, will be going on elsewhere. Regarding Yugoslavia, the PR needs NATO to hang its mystifications upon, anyway.
>In this case that includes recognition of the right of the people of Kosovo
>to self-determination. That is why Carter's criticism of NATO is reformist
>but more useful than the blanket 'revolutionary' critical stance of more
>left wing members of marxism-space.
Perhaps a world-wide trend to ethnically-defined territorialisation is a good thing, Chris. I don't think so. To me, it stinks coming from Belgrade, and it always stunk coming from the KLA leadership (I've too much sympathy with Albanian Kosovar refugees who've joined the KLA since March to dare question their right to take up arms). I DO think you NEVER apply a military 'solution' from outside in ethnic territorial conflicts. We may think (falsely) that we're warning violent ethnic-nationalists of the future, but we're also showing the other side of that equation that it might be worth starting something. How many Basques, Tyroleans, Franco-Belgians, Kurds, Ulster-republicans - oops, they're stuck in NATO countries, aren't they? - well, you know what I mean. And it logically can't solve the issue at hand, either.
Anyway, blanket opposition to any strategic bombing, any unilateral NATO military actions, and any gunpoint intervention in intranational ethnic strife actually does seem warranted to me.
I realise that leaves me with Rwanda 1990-96 to answer to, but I hope someone here might be able to help me out. I do know plenty of people saw that one coming (The much-quoted Guardian and du Monde were always on to it, for a start), and don't doubt for a second it could have been prevented. But what to do once something like that has started ... well, I don't have the sort of answer a million corpses warrant. I know a NATO bombing a Kigali ain't a candidate, though.
Anyone?
Cheers, Rob.