Nathan: Those arguments can go both ways. It all depenend whose claims we consider more legitimate i.e. the "our" thus versus "their" thug" thing. Th epoint of th ematter is that in the countries that lack real mechanisms for political representations of the people - as it is often th ecase in Eastern Europe -- intellectuals and politicians represent nobody but themselves. They usually present their claims as representing "national interests" but there is no meachanism in place that would ascertain that 1. all members of the public can freely voice their opinions, even unpopular ones; 2. those opinions and interests are institutionally represented in a politically meaningful way.
>From that point of view, Milosevic's claim are just as legitimate as those
of Rugova's or any other self-styled "voice of the people" in the region.
Neither one of them came to power through an relatively unbiased
institutional mechanism that would allow most people to voice their
interests without trampling on the basic rights of unpopular minorities.
That is a fundamental difference between Kosovo and Chile - which you fail to recognise. Chile had a relatively fair election system and a system of accountability for its leaders - which your country blatantly violated. Kosovo does not have such a system. Rugova appears to be nothing more than a puppet mouthpiecing whatever script the powers that be put in front of his eyes.
Under the rule of law in any country - a lawfully elected representative openly calling for a foreign invasion or kindred destruction of his/her own country would be subject to criminal charges. Under that principle, Rugova - even if his leadership has some shreds of legitimacy - is simply a traitor that under normal circumstances would be a subject to a criminal investigation.
That is particularly true about the US, where the High Court repeatedly called that advocacy of overthowing government by force is not protected by the 1st amendment rights. You may say that this was when the US elites felt threatened by "foreign influences." That is fine. But why we should go along withe claims of the US spin doctors wo evoke democratic pretences to justfy their own influences in the affairs of other countries.
To summarize, in principle I am not against foreign intervention to protect human rights abroad. But that is much different form accepting the US claims in that respect. Just as you do not ask Mafia to restore law and order, or Nazi Germany to save the Jews - you do not ask the US to intervene on behalf of human rights. This country's very existence is the biggest institutional obstacle to human rights worldwide.
wojtek
Dr. S. Wojciech Sokolowski Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218 voice (410) 516-4056 fax (410) 516-8233 email sokol at jhu.edu