>
> 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
>