Left Behind
American socialists, human rights and Kosovo
The war in Kosovo split the American left. However, it did not create the fissures, rather it revealed that beneath the spurious unity of support for socialism, there were two very different conceptions of politics. One put humanitarian concerns and human rights as, not only the first item on the agenda, but the reason for having an agenda at all. The other saw such concerns as occasionally and expediently useful rallying calls for struggles against imperialism and the ruling class. In either case, individual human rights were not to be compared to the right of an abstract humanity to an abstract progress. As the UN correspondent of the Nation, a respectable left wing magazine with a strong pedigree of "rational" leftism, I had written several editorials on Kosovo, named and un-named, which had identified the Belgrade regime's serious violations of human rights. One editorial had in fact suggested an ultimatum, that Serbia cease attacks on the Kosovars, or the world would recognize Kosovar independence. In any case it suggested that there should be UN troops there and a guaranteed referendum within three years. At the outbreak of the NATO bombing, there was some confusion in the Left, as priorities were shuffled. For many, it boiled down to a choice of what was the major issue, NATO intervention in its bombing, or the clear campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kosovars. Many on the sectarian Leninist Left, did not feel the need for choice. They simply denied the reality of Serb massacres and denounced NATO intervention, which was ipso facto, aggression. However, for the more rational left, it did pose an acute dilemma. The Pentagon had not been prominent in its support for humanitarian causes and many assumed that NATO was its fig leaf. NATO did indeed by-pass the United Nations, but on the other hand there was the gruesome reality of Milosevic's terror campaign. With Bogdan Denitch, a Croatian Serb and American who represents the Democratic Socialists of America at the Socialist International, I co-authored with a signed editorial supporting NATO intervention, albeit calling for ground troops as soon as possible. We pointed out that while opposition to Western military intervention was an understandable rule of thumb, it was not written in stone, World War II being a case in point. (The Case Against Inaction, The Nation April 26 1999) For the rest of the 78 days of war, that was almost the last expression of such sentiments in the magazine, with the honorable exception of Christopher Hitchens, who had a guaranteed space in his column. Other contributors including the right wing CATO Institute's Balkan expert Christopher Layne were given extensive space, (see The Case Against Intervention, April 19 1999 and NATO at 50.May 10, 1999 by Schwarz & Layne,Alexander Cockburn's column of eg. 21 June 1999) which between them they used three times to repeat the Serb nationalist canard that the Bosnians had staged the massacre of their own people in the Markale market place explosion in Sarajevo. Towards the end of the war, after a long struggle, Kai Bird, an editorial board member, also managed to interpose a pro-interventionist piece (Another Course in Kosovo, June 14 1999). I am all for a diversity of opinion, but found it irksome that, for example, a self-proclaimed Taftian Republican should be given such generous column space, while any hint of support for the war from the Left was in effect censored out. At an early stage, since it was clear that there was a serious division in the American Left, I suggested that the Nation Institute would organize a debate on the War. Over several weeks, this was transmuted into a "Teach In" with four or five speakers opposed to the war, and "perhaps one human rights NGO in favour." That eventually became a Pacifica Radio/Nation Institute Teach in LA, which was broadcast live on May 23 1999 (For radically different takes see, The Nation on Line, Workers World June 3 and Lalaland, May 27 on Salon.com by Ian Williams). It had 28 speakers, including some notorious Serb nationalists such as Bill Dorich, (co founder of the Serbian American Voters Alliance) who had consistently supported the wars that Serbia had waged on its neighbors, but were, obviously opposed to NATO.
At most three speakers out of the 28 could be construed as supporting intervention. I was brought in at the last moment when some local supporters of Pacifica complained about the lack of balance. A vociferous group of Serb nationalists and supporters of Ramsey Clark and the International Action Center (For details of their provenance, see Ian Williams, Ramsey Clark: The War Criminals' Best Friend, Salon.com 21 June 1999) heckled and tried to shout me down, not least when I pointed out that I was speaking on an ethnically cleansed panel, which had not one single Albanian or Kosovar. Admittedly some speakers, such as Rev. Jesse Jackson made it plain that they considered Milosevic to be committing unspeakable crimes, but that bombing was not the answer. Others ranged the full gamut of anti-war positions, but few others expressed more than passing lip service to the fate of the Kosovars. I must say that the hecklers were a distinct minority, and their behavior seemed to appall the majority of the audience, even those who opposed the bombing. However, in a replay of the "popular front" of the thirties, and of the halcyon days of the anti-Vietnam war protests, the watchword was unity against the war. Which is why the radical Pacifica and Nation had invited speakers like Arianna Huffington, the right wing republican who had married into money and who persuaded her husband to run for the Senate) and outright Serb nationalists to be on the platform. But from the tenor of the speakers, it was apparent that the Kosovars had committed the worst crime of all. They had garnered the support of the United States government which meant that what in another context might be a national liberation struggle had ipso facto become a campaign of reactionary gangsterism and thuggery against a legitimate (and in some opinions, socialist,) government. The nuanced approaches of some were more disturbing than the ostrich approach to Serb atrocities. It is one thing to deny the evidence totally, but to accept it, but then relegate it to a subordinate clause in a diatribe against NATO, was to me a chilling reversal of moral and humanitarian values. Some of the most vociferous sections of the American Left were far more concerned about NATO "aggression" against Serbia than they were about an organized pogrom that seems to have killed up to 15,000 Kosovars in cold blood and drove out a million more as refugees. In a sense, opposition to the war had become the touchstone of political correctness, over-riding economic and social concerns. It was brought to me how much the concept of thought-crime was involved when a prominent left commentator kept sending me information and supportive email messages, but did not at any point himself go public with his views. The Teach In, all five hours of which were relayed to the Pacifica chain nationwide, epitomized most of the contradictions of the Left's position. It allowed disproportionate influence to some of the smallest and most sectarian elements of an already diminutive socialist movement and in many ways denied the legitimacy of left "pro-war" positions, even to the extent of denying, or at least circumscribing their position on the platform. However they were able to extend an ecumenical hand of greeting to some of the most rabidly reactionaries as long as they were anti-war. In short, it was a microcosm of the Antiwar movement with all its contradictions. <SNIP> -- Michael Pugliese