>Opposing the bombing is de facto allying
>with Milosevic's regime, even if that does not mean you are pro-genocide or
>ethnic clensing.
no, it is not. the bombing will do nothing to help those expelled, it was never intended to help those expelled, by the clear admission of gen. Clark (sp?) - I just saw an interview with him where he categorically said stopping the expulsions and massacres was not on NATO's agenda, destroying the Belgrade govt.'s military was. the crucial difference between the two is clearly borne out by the military strategies adopted, as well as the results.
second: (because I don't believe for one moment that NATO (or at least the US) was unaware of Belgrade's detailed planning for the expulsions, that paramilitary movements during the ramboulliet (sp?) talks were widely known, and plans for 'operation horseshoe' known in some quarters) NATO's strategy (during the talks and after) would have been vastly different had this been their concern. in my more cynical moments, I'm prepared to believe that NATO banked on the expulsions dredging up support for military intervention - this is obviously what has happened. dealing a blow to a country's military (after the Versailles treaty and its consequences) has never worked to detach a population from a nationalist course - quite the opposite.
the claim that NATO is trying to save the Kosovars is only a feature of propaganda for western audiences, it has not informed military or diplomatic strategies. and, whilst there are some on the left who have seen this as sufficient reason to denigrate the refugees, there are those who have not, including myself. I do not think all discussion should or can be easily reduced to propaganda, an effacing of the real. (surprising really, since those on the anti-bombing side who have been most vocal in their denouncement of 'pomo' have often been the most willing to suspend the relation between truth and discourse in the name of politics, but that's another post.)
my point of departure has not been NATO, but precisely the refugees, the workers of Yugoslavia and the political-economic implications of this for workers in Europe and elsewhere. from this point of departure, the NATO bombing is part of the problem and will make the conditions people face significantly worse, including entrenching Serbian nationalism, as well as enhancing the legitimacy of the kla.
>In war, like a lot of conflicts, the question is just Which side are you On?
>In cases like this, neither side leading the charge is particularly
>appetizing, but to claim to have a political opinion on the war while also
>claiming to be non-aligned is just not credible.
why is it not credible? I support neither NATO nor the Belgrade govt, and have not hedged this, nor the difficulty associated with doing so. I have been critical of positions espoused in favour of NATO's actions as well as those against. it is a question of one's point of departure, not whether one falls into the choices being offered up by the (to put it crudely) dominant ideology which are, in their most fundamental sense, two sides of the same coin. what is not credible for leftists is to adopt one side OR the other as if this can function as a substitute for a class position, which it does not. and, having substituted for a class position, some people endlessly drag out analyses which are a world away from the questions of what are the ways in which the conditions for a resistance of the IMF, and the nationalism of which this is a both a result and a precondition, can be strengthened or even made possible.
at the core of this dispute within the left is the question of the relation between globalisation and nationalism. that some would continue to insist that there is a contradiction between the two, in the way this is being enacted, is the source of disorientation, expressed in its most extreme form in Mr. Jones celebration of milosevich as brave fighter against the IMF/New World Order.
I think this proxying speaks of a weakness of the left, if not a delusional state. it's a bit like arguing that because opposition to the One Nation in Australia was often popularly misogynistic (Pauline Hanson was not a 'real woman', etc), then sexism was the privileged means of fighting against ON for the left. that it sometimes was, certainly made the left question the degrees to which it could opportunistically accept this as a part of the alliance against the Tories, and to their credit, many leftists did not, though not once did any left orgs take on this sexism for fear of undermining the opposition. that a similar opportunism is evident now (in accepting racism as part of the anti-NATO coalition), or, going further, in advancing nationalism as the privileged oppositional form to global capital, is a sign of not only weakness perhaps, but perhaps defeat.
the same goes for those who want to proxy the left through NATO. it cannot be done.
but finally, Nathan, I wasn't going to enter this thread, but you are not being entirely honest. anyways, bring us back some info from Turkey. it will be interesting to get a sense of reaction there to events.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au