Chris Burford London
If I need a lesson in Formal Logic 101, Chris, by all means unpack your case.
My position is relatively simple: I opposed the NATO bombing of Serbia because the stated purpose behind it -- protecting terrorized minorities from a larger aggressor -- fell flat upon inspection. I stated the rather obvious, but often overlooked and dismissed (though not by you), spectacle of Turkish pilots, seasoned ethnic cleansers who could give the Serbs and Albanians some solid tips, dropping bombs on another country to "stop" ethnic cleansing. While some see this as hypocritical, I view it as the logical extension of imperial power.
The same holds for East Timor. Clinton, the great humanitarian warrior, allowed the Indonesians to run riot after the referendum and engage in the same violent manner that he and his allies said they were against, and would use force to stop. Only in the Timor case, no bombing would be needed. A simple phone call would bring the terror to a halt; and after letting the Indonesians go crazy, Clinton did eventually say that perhaps this was not a good idea. And with the introduction of Aussie troops, it stopped (though after the purpose was served). Again, logical imperial policy. If the US really was against the Indonesian action, the violence would not have reached the level it did.
Allowing imperial governments to define what is and is not "humanitarian" action, merely because you feel that your arguments will be taken seriously, is a losing proposition, in my view. There can be humanitarian intervention, and in certain cases there should be. But the NATO bombing served nothing save US global designs, at least as seen by Clinton. We'll see what Bush's and Powell's definition of "humanitarian" action is, assuming they bother to use the term.
DP
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010128/a6852029/attachment.htm>