At 04:56 AM 10/18/2000, Tony Abdo wrote:
>Alister, this whole thesis that NATO's actions strengthened Milosevic's
>power is so absurd.     It is the argument of those that wanted to
>'equalize' their opposition to both Milosevic and NATO... from their
>vantage points of being citizens in the imperialist countries.
>According to this line, NATO and Milosevic were allies in dividing up
>Yugoslavia!

That's a rather curious way of looking at the issue.  I certainly have no
wish to "equalise" opposition to NATO and Milosevic.  I am opposed to
NATO's existence, let alone its act in murdering Yugoslavians.  However, I
don't equate anti-NATO sentiments to support of Milosevic - he was clearly
not a democrat of any sort.  I have a great deal of antipathy to what we
term parliamentary democracy, but would suggest that it's preferable to no
democracy at all.

I want to point out that I think neither NATO's actions nor Milosevic's
methods were good things.  I realise that it's not as simple as opposition
to NATO = support for Milosevic, but that seems to be where you're coming
from (correct me if I'm wrong).  By the way, what's your take on the
apparent desire for Montenegro to secede from Yugoslavia?

>You wrote.....
><Look at Iraq - the opposition has been crushed as Hussein has free
>reign because we're busy bombing Iraq. The exact same thing happened
>during the heat of the bombings in Yugoslavia.>
>
>Because a cat plays with a mouse does not make them allies.     Plus, it
>should be obvious that the game that the US is playing with Iraq, is
>considerably different than how it has toyed with The Balkans.

Correct - there's no oil (that we know of) in the Balkans.  However, the
distinction between Iraq and Yugoslavia is not as great as you might think
in terms of the attacks - the issue is that when you're focusing on bombs
falling on your head, you don't necessarily have time to organise a
meaningful opposition.

>The US offered an 'out' to the Serbs, but did not to the people of Iraq.
>It is a false analogy in multiple ways.

There's an "out" open to Iraq - the appearance of meaningful change without
any actual change.  What's the possibility of them taking it?

>Milosevic and the NATO countries did not carry out their actions from
>the same vantage point.     Militarily whipping a country, does not
>built up support for who is the leader at the time of defeat.      And
>it is ridiculous of Chomsky to imply that it does.

Then take it up with him.  Back up your words with some solid research
showing military action (not defeat - that's not the issue Chomsky talks
about) damaged the support for Milosevic.  As best as I can make it out,
it's argued that while the bombs are falling there's little or no
possibility for an uprising.  If this is incorrect, I would be interested
to find out.

>      How sad that he
>has been backed off into this absurdity, by his abstentionism in
>opposing NATO in a concrete manner, rather than just the occasional puff
>of words via Znet and other Left press vehicles..

What should he have done?

>Kostunica is a vehicle for Djindjic, the Yugoslav counter-revolution,
>and the US, despite his supposed desire for independence of action.
>His position is about as interesting as was the position of Violeta
>Chamorro in Nicaragua.      I find it interesting that the US pumped so
>much money into influencing who would win the campaign.     And I don't
>remember too many NATO Bloc Leftists raising their voices against this.

I was wondering how long it would take before Nicaragua would be brought
in.  After all, there is an apparent similarity... if you don't look very
deeply.  Where's the US-funded army of Yugoslavians blowing up schools and
hospitals?

>Here in one paragraph are expressed two characteristics that are most
>disturbing about how so many of Chomsky's admirers behave.
>1) Chomsky is God, and who the hell are you to question him?

And you got this out of what I wrote how exactly?  Question him all you
want - I couldn't care less.  But question *him*.  I made an attempt to
second-guess his thoughts, which is not easy to do at the best of
times.  He'll give you a better rationale behind his actions than anyone else.

>2) Chomsky is not trying to organize.     He is a theoretician.
>
>Let me just respond to item #2 briefly.     This acceptance of Chomsky's
>inactivity as coalition builder with this excuse, is truly appalling.
>Chomsky built his whole fame as a theoretician, by denouncing the
>divergence between talk and action of so many others.     And now we are
>just to accept his refusal to make no effort to organize anything, at
>its face value?!

Not at all.  My comment was in terms of priorities.  I don't know what he's
up to these days.  Ask him why he's not building an antiwar alliance.  I've
seen people attack him face to face before - he doesn't seem to mind.

>The question people should ask is.... why doesn't Chomsky try to
>organize antiwar activities?     He is in a unique position to help out
>positively in a major way.     He chooses not to.     Does he have some
>sort of congenital defect that allows him to only do 'research'?

What unique position is he in exactly?  *That's* one of the key things that
comes through in his writings - everyone's in a position to act and
organise.  In that respect, Chomsky's in no worse a position than anyone
else who's not actively building an antiwar movement.

>The truth be said.... he organized his speaking campaigns during the
>'80s quite well.     He drew thousands to his talks.  And Alister and I
>are together in giving him credit for this role in building activism,
>during the depths of the Reagan-Thatcher era.

What did he organise?  Speaking talks are all well and good, but I'm not
sure they're any more useful than the odd article.  Did he help any local
anti-capitalist movements to build against the Reagan-Thatcher
attacks?   We had a Labor government here who set about doing some of the
same things, but to nowhere near the same scale.  Chomsky had a speaking
tour here in '95, but it was organised *for* him, not *by* him.  It was
interesting, sure, but didn't contribute to any organising.  That's not why
we wanted to hear from him.

>Why can't he organize events that don't center around his personal
>personna of being the 'brillliant critic' of imperialist society?
>If many of his followers are going to treat him like The Pope (which
>Chomsky has passively encouraged), then he should at least oblige by
>gathering his followers together around the total program.

This seems reasonable.  The responsibility is not automatically his if
people choose to treat him as some sort of minor deity, (whether
"passively" encouraged [which is debateable] or not) I would hope he'd
point them in an appropriate direction.

>He may not have an 'interest in Yugoslavia', but Yugoslav events are
>what will eclipse his role as chief Left commentator on current events.

I sincerely hope that there is no "chief Left commentator on current
events".  To be honest, I'm not sure Yugoslavia (as tragic as the whole
situation is) is any more or less important than any one of a hundred
issues.  One of my problems is that there are only a few hours in a day,
and I've wasted a fair part of one of them responding to this :-)

Alister