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!
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. For
starters, there is more than one cat involved in the Balkan hunt.
Plus, it should be noted that Mlosevic never allied himself in a project
with the US, like what Saddam Hussein did with his attack on Iran.
The US offered an 'out' to the Serbs, but did not to the people of Iraq.
It is a false analogy in multiple ways.
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. 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..
<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.>
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.
<He (Chomsky) 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......>
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?
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?!
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'?
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.
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.
He may not have an 'interest in Yugoslavia', but Yugoslav events are
what will eclipse his role as chief Left commentator on current events.
Tony Abdo
|
