MASSACRE IN MEJA : murder by Serbs in Kosovo

Brad De Long delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU
Sun May 9 17:20:37 PDT 1999



>1) Diplomatic channels were not exhausted

--I beg to differ. Diplomatic channels were exhausted. They

may reopen, however...


>2) The bombing has prompted the Serbs to accelerate their atrocities
>against the Kosovars

--Say, rather, that NATO's claim that it might bomb

was keeping the Serbs from accelerating their

atrocities--and now the Milosevic government

(not "Serbs", please: I'm sure most Serbs have

little desire to burn the houses and slit the

throats of people who live in Kosovo) feels

unrestrained.


>3) NATO's motivations are not humanitarian in nature, so that even if the
>bombing campaign succeeds in the sense that Milosevic agrees to a NATO
>protectorate in Kosovo, this may not be in the long term interest of the
>Kosovars or the local Serb population (although it would stop the killing).

--Piffle. NATO's motives (again, I don't like the

collective noun) are mixed.


>4) The bombing has threatened the stability of the region and our relations
>with Russia and China.

--Important, and true.


>5) NATO has flaunted international law, the set of guidelines and rules
>which the international community has agreed should govern international
>relations. In so doing, NATO is merely upholding the priciple of "might
>makes right."

--Which is that governments agree that each gets to slaughter

its own citizens when it feels like it? I feel about

international law like Gandhi felt about Western

Civilization: that it would be a good idea.


>Brett

So why no mention of the big, important reason to think that NATO's actions are a big mistake? That NATO is causing massive death and destruction without having much of an effect on Milosevic's power, objectives, and goals? That weapons are tools for changing an adversary's mind, not for blowing up civilians who "belong" to that adversary?

Brad DeLong



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list