>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. They have also provided cover for accelerating
        the very ethnic cleansing they claim to be preventing.

> 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. However, the irrational argument above is
        exactly the one promoted by CNN, the State Department and NATO
        spokestooges.

        As the NATO bombings have sped up the ethnic cleansing, allowed the
        suppression of Serbian opposition, rallied the waverers behind Milosevic
        and prevented humanitarian aid from reaching the victims there is
        already a strong case for stopping them.

> 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?

        The defiance of UN resolutions against aggressive warfare by NATO?

>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?

        Do these writers have a history of condemning UN resolutions
        overwhelmingly
        carried on the numbers which are then vetoed by the US?



> 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?

>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?
                                                        - michael