"Where Are Kosovo's Killing Fields?"

[Chris Burford]

At 13:04 19/10/99 -0400, Brett Knowlton wrote:
>Chris,
>
>>Yet that was not the original justification of the NATO attack, which was
>>based on the population of Kosovo being deprived of its right to self
>>determination (within Yugoslavia - interestingly).
>
>Perhaps.  But the obvious next question is why was NATO (and the US) so
>concerned about Kosovar self determination when it (and the US) doesn't
>give a rat's a** about Turkish Kurd self determination, or Columbian self
>determination, or the self determination of lots of other ethnic minorities
>around the world?  This hypocrisy sheds serious doubt on the sincerity of
>NATO's professed convictions.

I am coming back not because I disagree totally but because now we know
more and these are important questions to discuss. 

I think there is no doubt of the hypocrisy of any ruling capitalist
government or coalition.  But where I differ from some ultra-leftists is in
the theory of the state. I think a state has at times to *appear* to stand
above classes and for higher interests in order to maintain exploitation.
Without having trust in such a state, nevertheless it may at times be
progressive. 

I think we can see a sort of overall plan for US led global finance
capital. It is in favour of large markets and large states. It is very much
opposed to terrorism but may be in favour of some forms of local democracy.
This is partly because that is its ideal for global capitalism (every one
should have freedom to demonstrate for the right to drink Cocal Cola and
wear brand label jeans) and partly because this is the best compromise of
cultural and ethnic tensions. 

In that last respect there is a similarity with the marxist position but
for a different class interest. Whereas the proletariat wants national
oppression solved on the basis of democracy to aid the unity of the working
class, modern international finance capital wants the same result in order
to avoid undue interruption of its markets.


>>The point that the Stratfor analysis overlooks is the role of terror in
>>state policy. Engels and Lenin discussed this frankly. 
>>
>>Clearly the volume of expelled people which surprised NATO, was only
>>achieved through terror. Terror is a way of enforcing your will that may on
>>balance actually reduce the number of deaths. 
>
>No doubt this is correct. 

And was also correct in East Timor.  

>But a similar thing is happening in Kosovo right
>now.  Nearly all of the ethnic Serbs have been driven out by the Albanians,
>along with the gypsies (and others?).  Shouldn't the Albanians be denounced
>for similar behavior?  

Yes, and I do not think we need doubt the capitalist motives of NATO for
wanting to keep some semblance of multi-ethnicity in Kosovo. They have even
formed the ghettoes for Serbs that they feared the Russian would create if
their troops were independent.


>
>>The entry into Kosovo of 30,000 Serb troops willing to work with fascist
>>paramilitaries....
>
>I don't know if they were fascist or not.  Perhaps they were.  But it seems
>you could describe the KLA in the same manner.  

And these *are* really fascist?  I do not see any principled reason for
doubt that Arkan's tigers were fascist units which waged terror in Bosnia
and in Kosovo. There are many models across the world of regular state
forces working in parallel with extra-legal fascist groups  (eg South
Africa, South America).



>The KLA seems just as fascist as the Serbs used to be.  Which is why I
>don't understand the claim that support of the bombing was important to
>keep a united front against fascism.  

OK. I would not state it like that. I do think the suppression of the
legitimate demands of the Albanian majority of Kosovo was a clear case of
fascism, and the 20th century has taught that proletarian forces should
ally with bourgeois forces against fascism. I think however the bombing was
an imperialist way of conducting that war. 


>>I do expect the EU to maintain economic sanctions on Serbia until it
>>respects the democratic rights of all people of the former Yugoslavia,
>>(including the right in the Yugoslav constitution for cities not to be
>>expelled from the country).
>
>This is just another way of saying "we'll lift the economic sanctions
>whenever we feel like it."  

Although I think not every action of a government is wrong, I do not mean
that we should fantasise as if we were the government. 

I think the more difficult question to clarify a real political stance is
how to criticse a bourgeois government selectively in a pre-revolutionary
period, to pressurise it to make some real changes which aid the balance of
progressive forces. Chomsky, and a wide section of the left who opposed the
Kosovo war, have supported severe financial sanctions on Indonesia to make
it accept peace keeping troops in East Timor. 

I think there should be economic sanctions against Serbia and against
Turkey for their treatment of their minorities, until this improves.

Meanwhile I think there should be an international development fund for
countries like Tanzania that do not oppress their minorities.


Chris Burford

London