I agree with Nathan. I don't believe that the Kosovo war was fought for reasons of business interest.
In fact it would have been a lot less barbaric if it were.
At least colonial exploitation acknowledges some practical limits.
By contrast, moral fervour knows none.
It is far more dangerous and destructive.
Incidentally can I recommend Slavoj Zizek's review of Vaclav Havel's biog. in the new London Review of Books. Zizek takes the opportunity to dissect the perversities of the humanitarian war, and its 'subject- victim' of Kosovo.
In message <v04210106b434fc8c44f6@[166.84.250.86]>, Doug Henwood
<dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>>Sure. I should have said business constituency attuned to restrained and
>>selective interventionism. But the point is that there is a whole class of
>>business-based imperialists who saw no interests in Kosovo, which undermines
>>the argument that this intervention was driven by such interests.
>
>Is this a backdoor way of saying that intervention really was driven
>by humanitarian impulses and not power politics? You're always going
>to find business interests opposed or indifferent to intervention.
>But is that where big capital is at? Does opposition or indifference
>from certain (mainly smallish) capitals undermine the role of the
>state executive as the executive committee of the bourgeoisie?
>
>Lots of financial players hate it when the Fed tightens; they lose
>money. Does that mean that capital is ill-served by its central
>bankers?
>
>Doug
>
-- Jim heartfield