>You argue as if there have not been previous agreements on Kosovo.
>Milosevic has repeatedly agreed to stop butchering Kosovans and has
>repeatedly broken his word. This is not a case of bomb first, negotiate
>later, but of negotiate, agreement, Milosevic breaks agreement, more
>negotiation, agreement, breaking of agreement - repeat a few more times -
>and finally as cultural genocide and mass murder escalates, a belated - in
>some ways too late - intervention.
I was not aware of any string of failed diplomatic efforts. So I'll yield on this point.
>As I said, the process was not the problem in the Gulf War, it was the
>morality of the war in any case. Trying to second-guess negotiating ploys
>and positions between two self-interested parties is futile. You can cite
>public positions and that proves nothing if the other side had reason to
>believe the public position was a ploy to bargain for other ends. Ex post
>facto analysis of failed negotiations is largely useless for illumination of
>the truth for that reason.
My point is you should always pursue any chance for a negotiated settlement because, if you succeed, it prevents the nastiness you're seeing now in Yugoslavia and what you saw during the Gulf War. An agreement is almost always preferred. So you try - this doesn't guarantee a peaceful settlement, but stopping negotiations, or issuing one sided ultimatums makes violence much more likely.
>The issue is justice, not process. There is an obsession with process in
>some elements of the Left that excuses evil as long as the Devil fairly
>negotiated for his victim's souls.
The general point I was trying to make is that whenever you contemplate using force you should have first tried your best to exhaust the potential for a negotiated settlement. So process was a problem in the Gulf War, since in many ways we were responsible for blocking a peaceful settlement of the situation. The process is designed to achieve a just outcome, not to thwart it.
Besides, in most cases, the goal is to keep suffering to a minimum. True justice is very rarely, if ever, possible. Keeping violence to a minimum is usually the best way to prevent suffering, and settlements minimize violence.
>How many civilian deaths are attributed to the KLA? There have no doubt
>been abuses by the KLA, but no human rights group has compared their abuses
>to the level of Milosevic's military and paramilitary forces. And whatever
>can be said about past groups that used the name KLA, is it quite obvious
>from recent reports that the forces of Kosovo resistance, under the banner
>of the name KLA, has been vastly expanded by many of the people who fought
>nonviolently for years against Serbia's leadership.
This is not a valid comparison. Even if the KLA leaders are 10 times more bloodthirsty than the Serbs, they are not in a position to commit atrocities the way the Serbs are. If the KLA gained power, then they WOULD be in position to murder and rape and pillage. Which I suspect they would do.
Secondly, the fact that former nonviolent protesters have joined the KLA, by itself, says nothing about the character of the KLA. If anything, it just means the two sides want to kill each other more than ever. If these new recruits have democratized the KLA and softened it, that's something different, but I haven't seen any reason to believe that's the case.
>When does a group deserve autonomy? When the majority engages in broad
>repression and massacre against that minority to the point that it is clear
>the majority will never operate with pluralistic tolerance. The Quebecois
>have trouble justifying themselves by that standard, as to the Basque to a
>certain extent (although Spanish government abuses help justify it).
>
>And by any definition, the Kosovans deserve autonomy given the abuses and
>now cultural genocide by the Serbian government.
I'll accept that position.
>As for Kosovan democratic autonomy, that is what they have been fighting
>for. They had a legislature up until the late 80s that was as functioning a
>democratic institution as the rest of Yugoslavia. And they have continued a
>whole range of underground democratic institutions, including elections
>throughout the 1990s. The Kosovans have a broad-based history of nonviolent
>dedication to democracy that I find quite admirable.
>
>You ignore that history of democratic mobilization that has involved most of
>the population of Kosovans, while overemphasizing a few abuses by KLA
>military people. This denial of Kosovan legitimate rights to democratic
>decision is exactly what bothers me about the whole Left anti-bombing
>position. It is not that I support all separatist movements, but when a
>population overwhelming and democratically supports such separatism, it is
>dictatorship to deny them autonomy.
The KLA is fighting for independence, but not for DEMOCRATIC autonomy. If the KLA institutes anything resembling a real democracy which respects the rights of ethnic minorities I'll eat my shorts. This flies in the face of every report I've seen on the KLA. I simply don't believe it.
Brett