At 11:26 AM 10/16/2000, Tony Abdo wrote:
><And it's an undisputed fact that the NATO bombing entrenched his grip
>on power.>
>Alister
>
>What makes you say this, Alister?      I rather think that NATO's
>terrorism is WHY Milosevic lost the election.     The US bribed the
>electorate with its promise to stop the economic sanctions if they
>abandoned Milosevic.     You and Chomsky want to act as if this was
>inconsequential!

Firstly, the quotes mentioned are mentioned *because* they're
anti-Milosevic and pro-Western intervention, yet still manage to say that
intervention failed the West.  They're point of view was pro-intervention,
ours is anti-intervention.  Because they were in favour of the NATO
bombing, yet they now criticise it, is reason for them to be included in
Chomsky's article.  It would not be news if anti-bombing news sources said
the bombing didn't work.

Sanctions hurt the ordinary Yugoslavian, sure, but it seems that the black
market allowed the powerful to profit.  Surprise, surprise.  So why did
they turn against Milosevic?  It was in their direct interest not to.  I
find this curious, don't you?  Far from Chomsky saying that the sanctions
were inconsequential, he in fact says that they suited the rich and
powerful.  This aided Milosevic in keeping hold of power.  You'll note that
the election result announced in fact did not give the victory to
anyone.  The sanctions hurt his standing with the people, sure, and this
could be *a* reason (but not *the* reason) why his support
crumbled.  However, with the help of the military (who he had every reason
to count on) he'd still be in power today.  It's not that the sanctions
were inconsequential (no-one's saying that at all) but that they didn't
hurt his main supporters, who had the power to ensure he remained in office.

>Not to mention the threat of a new hot war.     Chomsky's analysis is
>ridiculous, and begins with a bombardment of capitalist press quotes
>that Chomsky states agreement with..... Kostunica might be independent
>to some degree???, or that the NATO bloc supported Milosevic by bombing
>Yugoslavia!

Why would you say that this is ridiculous?  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.  Just because the stated aim of the bombing wasn't to prop up
Milosevic (does anyone know what its aim actually was?) doesn't
automatically mean it hurt him politically.  He got to play hard man
standing up to the big bad bully.  As for Kostunica, do you not find it
interesting or relevant that he was a critic of NATO and the US before he
was installed?  His position now that he is Yugoslavian President will be
interesting, of course.  Time will tell whether Chomsky is correct.

>Dear, Chomsky.... is this really your take on the situation?      The
>people of Serbia (notice Chomsky's refusal to say Yugoslavia) are in the
>driver's seat?!    Taking over industry!... establishing dual power?!

We've yet to see what they'll do.  However, it's currently in their own
hands - they don't *have* to engage with NATO if they don't want
to.  Remember, workers did take control of their factories (if only for a
while - I don't know if they're still there).  People took over the State
TV stations and the Parliament.  That could have ended anywhere.

>What happened to NATO?    Is the London Financial Times really shaking
>with fear as you imply, Noam?       This isn't an anarchist position on
>these events.     This is Chomsky standing in for Ralph Nader.

Chomsky's not an anarchist.  He says this himself.  However:

>I find Chomsky's call for US Left activist solidarity with Yugoslavia at
>this point, particularly repulsive.    Like he's done so much to build a
>protest movement against NATO militarism in The Balkans!     Is this
>what he's calling for now?      I rather think not.      Chomsky has
>done next to nothing through the years, to try to organizationally build
>an antiwar alliance.

He was asked his opinion.  I don't think he's concerned about your opinion
of his actions - he doesn't come across as having a particular interest in
Yugoslavia in any case.  I don't know that Chomsky's trying to build an
antiwar alliance, "organizationally" or otherwise.  He's generally a
researcher, not an organiser.  What would you expect him to say about the
situation there - that the Left should ignore it?  Or worse, that Milosevic
should be supported because he stood against the US?  Anyone with passing
familiarity with Chomsky's work would know that he'd not offer support for
a dictator purely because the alternative has the support of the US.

Alister


--

"Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption of this
Declaration (of Human Rights) and supposedly under its protection, millions
of people have died in the world without reaching the age of 50 and without
even knowing that there was a universal document that should have protected
them."
Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister