Michael Strutt responds to Denitch and Williams:
> >An opinion by Bogdan Denitch and Ian Williams
> >-------------------------------
> >The Nation, April 26, 1999
> >
> > The Case Against Inaction
> >
> > Sadly, some on the left are angrier about NATO's bombing
> > than they are about the Serbian forces' atrocities, even though
> > Milosevic's men have killed more in one Kosovan village than
> > have all the airstrikes.
>
> Nato airstrikes have killed over 100 civilians in the past
> two weeks. That's 2500 per year. A higher rate than the
> estimated combined death rate caused by the Serbian military
> and the KLA over the previous year.
And yet they continue, even though they know their killing results in
bombing that kills their own people.
> They have also provided cover for accelerating the very
> ethnic cleansing they claim to be preventing.
What do you mean by "providing cover"? They are accused of ethnic
cleansing. People believe they are doing it, so the bombing isn't
covering it.
> > Those who want an immediate NATO
> > cease-fire owe the world an explanation of how they propose
> > to stop and reverse the massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, in
> > light of Milosevic's history as a serial ethnic cleanser and
> > promise-breaker.
>
> Seems to me that it's up to those who favour the bombing to show
> that it helps the situation, not those who oppose it to come up
> with an alternative.
NATO does't have to show anything, because there isn't any higher
authority that can stop it. NATO just has to decide to do it and then
do it. Without a higher authority, the only way to stop NATO before
it finishes is to organize a massive protest that literally threatens
the stability of the world economy. That requires an enormous number
of people to actually act against their own economic self-interest.
If there were enough Buddhists in the west, it could be done. But if
there were enough Buddhists in the west, we wouldn't be in this
situation in the first place.
> However, the irrational argument above is exactly the one
> promoted by CNN, the State Department and NATO spokestooges.
But it isn't an irrational argument. When should an organization like
the Serb army led by someone like Milosevic be stopped by force?
Never? If not never, then how close were we to the limit? If we had
waited longer, would he have destabilized the entire region?
> As the NATO bombings have sped up the ethnic cleansing,
The NATO bombings have not sped up the ethnic cleansing. The Serbs
have sped up the ethnic cleansing. The NATO bombing has destroyed
much of the military and civilian infrastructure and has killed a lot
of people.
> allowed the suppression of Serbian opposition,
The NATO bombings have not allowed the suppression of the Serbian
opposition. The Serbs have suppressed the Serbian opposition.
> rallied the waverers behind Milosevic and prevented
> humanitarian aid from reaching the victims
True.
> there is already a strong case for stopping them.
There is no authority to stop them. Organizing a grass roots movement
will take so long that the bombing will end before it gathers enough
momentum. Such a movement should have been organized long before the
bombing. It should have been organized to stop Milosevic and the
Serbs. The people who are protesting the bombing now were not
protesting the worsening situation in Jugoslavia. This list was dead
until the bombing started. Protests organize to stop bombing, but
they don't organize to stop dictators. They don't organize to prevent
and defuse situations that NATO eventually decides to fix. There were
no massive demonstrations when the IMF imposed stresses on the
Jugoslavian economy. There were no massive demonstrations when the
fighting started that resulted in the breakup of Jugoslavia. There
were no massive demonstrations when the Dayton accords neglected to
resolve the Kosovo problem. Now NATO is bombing, and there are
massive demonstrations. Before the bombing, if those who are
protesting the bombing now cared, they didn't care enough to protest,
not on this list anyway.
> > Arguments that the NATO action diminishes
> > the stature of the United Nations are, to say the least, highly
> > questionable. What could diminish the UN's stature more than
> > Milosevic's successful defiance of more than fifty Security
> > Council resolutions?
>
> Umm, the much large number of resolutions defied by countries like
> Israel and the US?
True. But that isn't going to change unless the structure of the
system changes. That should be obvious by now.
> The defiance of UN resolutions against aggressive warfare by
> NATO?
True. But NATO is not hampered by a veto power, and, at the moment,
there is no credible force to resist it, unless Russia threatens
nuclear retaliation.
> >Only last September, Resolution 1199,
> > invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, ordered Belgrade to
> > "cease all action by the security forces affecting the civilian
> > population and order the withdrawal of security units used for
> > civilian repression" in Kosovo. Only last October, Milosevic
> > promised to reduce troop numbers in Kosovo, and his pledge
> > was endorsed and given the force of international law by
> > Security Council Resolution 1203. By the time the
> > Rambouillet negotiations had started, he had more troops in
> > Kosovo than ever before, and they had already begun their
> > well-prepared campaign of ethnic cleansing.
>
> > Real internationalists can hardly use the dubious rights of
> > "national sovereignty" to oppose action to stop massacres.
> > Opposition to US military intervention is an understandable
> > rule of thumb, but it shouldn't become obsessive dogma. After
> > all, most Europeans were happy with US intervention in
> > World War II. The British court decisions on Gen. Augusto
> > Pinochet show that, at last, politicians who murder cannot
> > expect amnesty afterwards. Why should Slobodan Milosevic
> > expect impunity as he carries out crimes against humanity?
>
>
> > Ideally, there should have been a UN Security Council vote
> > endorsing military action, but China and Russia had made it
> > plain that no matter what barbarities Milosevic committed
> > they would veto any such resolution.
>
> And we can't go having a vote if the result might go against us,
> now can we?
If the UN were a democracy, they probably would have put it to a
vote. China and Russia could not have stopped it by themselves. But
since there is the veto power, the UN won't work in these situations.
> Do these writers have a history of condemning UN resolutions
> overwhelmingly
> carried on the numbers which are then vetoed by the US?
It doesn't matter. That's how the structure works. If there is a
veto power, it will be used. If it is used often, it effectively
destroys the power of the instituation. The UN is good at helping
refugees and providing other services on which everybody agrees. But
in situations where there is major disagreement among the big players,
it will function like the Red Cross.
> > Happily, most of the
> > Council agreed that ethnic cleansing was not something that
> > could be shielded behind a dubious claim of national
> > sovereignty and soundly defeated, 12 votes to 3, a Russian
> > draft resolution condemning the bombing. Only Namibia
> > joined Beijing and Moscow. NATO, most of whose
> > governments are members of the Socialist International,
> > agreed on a military response.
>
> > In short, the court of international public opinion has
> > implicitly, resoundingly, endorsed military action.
>
> The UN represents international public opinion?
>
> I don't remember voting for them?
That's one of the structural problems. You don't get to vote.
> >Milosevic
> > is clearly counting on past experience that the international
> > community will compromise, accept the results of ethnic
> > cleansing and leave him in power. We hope that this time he
> > has miscalculated. Three of the major European
> > players--Britain, France and Germany--under like-minded
> > left-of-center governments have united in their determination
> > to stop him, and they have popular majorities for doing so.
>
> > Soon NATO will be faced with two alternatives: stop the
> > bombing and "negotiate," or commit ground troops. The
> > bombing should stop only when Belgrade agrees to pull out or
> > is pushed out of Kosovo, if necessary by ground troops. For
> > most of this decade Milosevic has used negotiations as a cover
> > to consolidate the gains of ethnic cleansing.
>
> <snip, more CNN standard journalism, where 'evil Milosevic' is
> given as the reason for bombing Serbs and Kosovars and the
> fact that the bombings only aggravate the problem is compeletely
> ignored>
>
> What is this propaganda in aid of? Is it meant to fool US 'liberals'
> or something?
I think people are in favor of the NATO action because it is a
decisive action to stop a wrong. Despite the fact that the NATO
action is also a wrong, I think they will continue to be in favor of
it as long as it stays focused on its military goal and until the
Russians negotiate a deal acceptable to NATO.
martin
Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|
