Carter's criticism of NATO bombing

Chris Burford cburford at gn.apc.org
Sat May 29 12:57:29 PDT 1999


No doubt US citizens have more direct insights into Jimmy Carter's strengths and weaknesses, mainly his weaknesses. From where I stood he seemed to have a naive belief in his own honesty that risked trying to place him above the reality of politics.

However this criticism of the war below, although it will certainly not suit all list members, seems to me significant for the future. Carter has taken the role of an expert in peace politics. His criticisms have echoes with those of Paul Rogers, professor at Bradford university's school of peace studies quoted in the Guardian article forwarded by Doug on shift in bombing strategy and me in the contribution on class structure in the Balkans.

NATO cannot be turned round now, although pressure can mount for a compromise peace sooner rather than later. Milosevic will accept some NATO troops on Kosovo soil.

The world will see they have made a desert and called it peace.

At that point what matters is how the NATO action is criticised, because it will be, very vocally. Think of all the journalists treading over the ground having to say something. This war has not been a push over for NATO. The nature of the criticism will affect the extent to which the US together with its most loyal ally (there is little dispute about who that is) is constrained in its role as hegemon of the world.

Out of this process, and much struggle, will come a better understanding of international law, which will limit the self-appointed hard men till we get to some sort of world governance that armed force can only be used internationally according to agreed procedures.

In this ideological and political battle, contributions from quarters as apparently insignificant as a department of peace studies in Bradford and a peace unit run by a rather naive former US president, will actually shape the terms of debate.

It is not so silly as it seems. And what is written here, it is not incompatible with the principle of Clausewitz embraced by marxists, that war is the continuation of politics by other means, and politics is the continuation of war by other means. Realistic peace studies argue merely that the political phase should at least be extended longer before resort to war. And then should not be forgotten.

Note in this summary from Carter his specific areas of criticism, including about the stopping of the negotiations before the third week in March, and about cluster bombs, and targetting roads, bridges and water supplies. Yes it is still an imperialist analysis because it leaves a lot of scope for intervention, and actually promotes a ground force, but this adds to a list of major strategic errors by NATO and will get debated in the aftermath.

[I see also that Gunder Frank has posted an article by Carter of the same date, on his web site.]

bombing 'a fruitless effort'

May 28, 1999

Web posted at: 7:45 a.m. EDT (1145 GMT)

PLAINS, Georgia (CNN) -- Former U.S. President

Jimmy Carter said Thursday that NATO's

bombardments of Yugoslavia have failed to achieve

the alliance's stated goals, and have unleashed

"horrible destruction" on Serb civilians.

"I just hate to see us continue to destroy the lives of

totally innocent civilians in Serbia in a fruitless effort,"

he said on CNN's "Larry King Live." He called the

air campaign "well-intentioned but

counterproductive."

In a harsh assessment of NATO, Carter said the

alliance should have begun preparing for a ground

invasion of Kosovo immediately after Operation

Allied Force began "to make sure that (Yugoslav

President Slobodan Milosevic) knew we meant

business."

Carter: Ground troops better than bombing

Carter said sending ground troops into Kosovo

would be "a better option" than the bombing he

blames for hurting the people of Serbia but not

Milosevic. He said he became alarmed when the

bombing shifted from military targets to roads,

bridges, and water supplies.

"The endgame seems to be a decision by NATO to

continue this destruction of Yugoslavian civilian life,"

he said on CNN. "We can destroy Yugoslavia by

continued bombing, but I'm not sure we'll defeat

Milosevic."

The former president, who has become well-known

as a peace negotiator since leaving office in 1980,

said he thought NATO could have done more to try

to reach a peaceful resolution before the conflict

began, and that negotiations should never have been

abandoned.

White House 'respectfully disagrees'

In response to Carter's comments, State Department

spokesman James Rubin said "President Carter's

suggestion that we should have kept on negotiating

with President Milosevic ... is simply incorrect."

White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said

Carter was a leader with "real stature ... both at

home and abroad. But on this case we just

respectfully disagree with him."

Carter said he wrote to President Clinton a few

weeks ago, urging him not to use cluster bombs -- a

weapon that Carter said is "only used to kill human

beings." He said he has not received a response from

the president.

The former president is chairman of the nonprofit

Carter Center in Atlanta, which monitors conflicts

around the world. In an op-ed piece in Thursday's

New York Times, Carter lamented the willingness of

leaders to give up on peaceful resolutions.

"We have become increasingly inclined to sidestep

the time- tested premises of negotiation, which in

most cases prevent deterioration of a bad situation,

and at least offer the prospect of a bloodless

solution," Carter wrote.

His comments came as NATO granted Supreme

NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark authority to

hit a broader range of targets in Yugoslavia.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list