I would be delighted to see Chinese troops keeping the peace in Kosovo. It would be a sign that the globalisation agenda is not steered solely by western finance capital.
Perhaps some South African troops too (Mandela is on record years ago expressing the hope that Europe could avoid further tribal wars of the sort that had caused such losses in Africa. - not a full scientific statement of their causation but a nice reversal of the traditional eurocentric perspective.)
The Chinese government might hesitate over the details in view of the possible controversies if the muslim Albanians protested against discrimination, and this had echoes in their own national minority areas. On the other hand the Chinese might be among the most experienced in handling those sorts of contradictions non-antagonistically and with respect.
I highlighted the astonishing nature of Chernomyrdin's suggestion because it is literally unprecedented in world history. Not because IMO it would be bad.
We are seeing history move on in front of our eyes.
Bob Anderson asked
>> This is not an inter-imperialist war. It is a war by a unique and
>> unrivalled hegemonic bloc not striving for territory but striving for the
>> opening of all countries to the global "free" market with rights of access
>> for the giant capitalist companies. The moral justification for this is an
>
>What, in essence, is the difference between inter-imperialist wars and
>hegemonic bullying if the end result is not the same?
It is not for territory but for zones of influence. It is drastically constrained by the need to win acceptance if not agreement, from civil society in a much wider number of countries. It is qualitatively different from the imperialisms of the first world war, who declared war openly.
The fight back against the imperialist features of this war is based on an appeal to a better world governance, not to the rival imperialist bloc.
That is the best I can do before work. I have had ISP access problems.
Chris Burford
London