While I have agreed that NATO's approach, opening, and conduct of the war has been imperialist, I have differed from those who thought it possible to criticise NATO effectively without also at the same time, supporting the principle of the human rights of the Kosovo Albanians.
It was predictable that by war the Serb nationalists could defeat the Kosovo Albanians, and that NATO could defeat Serbia.
To oppose one's ruling class in an imperialist country is always a starting point, but a realistic assessment of the balance of forces required an understanding that we are not in a pre-revolutionary period in western countries, and NATO was likely to win.
A leftist refusal to take this on board has in fact weakened the ability of the left and progressive people to win more support in opposing the imperialist features of western action.
These leftist errors also raise the grave danger now of leaving progressive people demoralised and cynical and what can and should be done.
In an article reposted on his marxism mailing list on 1st April under the title "The theoretical framework for opposing NATO's war", Louis Proyect argued that
"Marxist opposition to World War II was principled and correct, but it did not stand much chance of gaining a wide following. This should not present a problem for us. We seek the revolutionary kernel of Marxism. All else is besides the point."
This is quite wrong. The "revolutionary kernel of Marxism" cannot be found separately from practice, and people cannot move to a more revolutionary position by just listening to abstractly correct marxists.
There are now issues where NATO and the west for all their apparent strength are vulnerable, and where campaigning can be of benefit both in terms of the specific reforms and in educating and mobilising people for wider struggles.
NATO appears to be exercising the victor's right to insist that it will only cease aggressive action when the other side has surrendered unconditionally. If now NATO enforces a rout on Serb forces leaving Kosovo rather than negotiating a withdrawal, if it has no means for restraining the KLA from charging into the vacuum, there could be worse massacres of Serb and other minority people in the territory of Kosovo.
It becomes urgent that all subsequent events are fully open to scrutiny and monitoring by civil society. Independent initiatives need to be made now to insist that the peace implementation incorporates this. NATO should be vulnerable to pressure on this point as it would want censorship and other restrictions on non-governmental organisations lifted in Serbia, as soon as possible.
I have already written about the need for monitoring and criticism of economic reconstruction plans. Sam Pawlett has also commented on this. I do not accept the analysis that the process of incorporation of the countries of eastern Europe to the sphere of influence of the European Union entails third world wages imposed on them. Certainly there is exploitation of low wage rates, but also there is protection for some limited inward investment, and that is beneficial for the price of labour power. What is central is that the economic reconstruction should at least be guided by social foresight and should not involve the wholesale destruction of previous forms of economic activity thus creating an even larger reserve army of labour for the maximum exploitation by finance capital. Not only is that oppressive, it is irrational, since modern finance capital in the metropolitan countries requires a skilled and cultured workforce and a market of informed consumers, not a lumpen proletariat.
Divisions may now open up between the US and Europe in the course of the peace. The appointment of Solana moving from NATO to public representative of the EU on defence and foreign policy is a significant and conscious strengthening of the European pole of the Atlantic axis. Given Solana's leftist past he may well be in tune in the future with leftist or centrist European leaders who might find it better in a future world conflict to have a somewhat different position to the US, especially if Europe has its own armed forces capable of acting independently of the US in at least some scenarios.
But I also agree with Sam Pawlett that Yugoslavia's case at the Hague which was lost this week, was almost certainly stronger than the headlines implied. That can and will constrain future conduct by the NATO hegemonistic bloc. On the headline issue of genocide, the key issue of international law in this war, it looked to me as if the Yugoslav case was potentially valid since the genocide convention includes the partial destruction of a nation. It would be good to have more information about this case.
At 18:08 03/06/99 -0700, Sam Pawlett wrote:
> BTW, the World Court yesterday wimped out and ruled against Yugoslavia
>in its charge
>of genocide against NATO. It ruled on a technicality that Yugoslavia is
>not a member of the UN and is thus not in its jurisdiction. The Court
>threw out other charges made against the U.S. on grounds that the U.S.
>*had opted out of an important genocide convention in the U.N. charter
>on which Belgrade's case was based.* NATO did not argue the case on its
>merits, it instead challenged the jurisdiction of the World Court. But
>what would you expect? Law experts quoted in the National Post agreed
>that Belgrade had a very strong case and would certainly have won if the
>case had been argued on its merits.
>
>Sam Pawlett
>
>
Chris Burford
London