>>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.