Michael Strutt responded to Martin Smith:
> >> >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.
>
> And if I point a gun at your head and demand your wallet, my shooting
> of you when you refuse to hand it over is your fault because you
> *knew* the likely result of a refusal, right?
But I wouldn't refuse to hand you my wallet. If you put a gun to my
head and demand my wallet, and then NATO puts a gun to your head and
demands that you drop the gun, do you mean you are suddenly a victim?
The Serbs can stop the bombing by pulling out of Kosovo and allowing
an international *force* to come in. They have chosen not to do
that.
> Those who commit atrocities *always* manage to find justification in
> the actions of others, usually the victims, and always insist that
> *other* people must take action before they will stop.
That's right. You are abstracting the rules of the metamodel that
generates the system. You have to do that before you change the
metamodel. If you don't change the metamodel, then your protesting is
just self-righteous posturing, because you will not change the system,
and the system will keep generating the same events over and over again.
> >> 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.
>
> Firstly the international observers who may be able to confirm or
> deny the stories allegedly reported to NATO have fled the bombing
> or been expelled.
Fled the bombing? Believing their presence was necessary to prevent
the killing, and knowing they would not themselves be targeted by the
bombing, they fled? That doesn't sound like commitment to peace. Why
don't they go back in now? Why doesn't some other organization go back
in now? Amnesty International?
Been expelled? Assuming the Serb army, police and paramilitary are
*not* committing atrocities, they would expel their alibi? That
doesn't make sense, does it?
> Secondly, independent Yugoslav media and political opposition who may
> have been able to get accurate info to those in Serbia have now been
> suppressed as the country is on a war footing.
But media serves elites. Are you now arguing against that
well-established fact? Are there good media and bad media? Why don't
the good media go to the neighbor countries and broadcast into
Yugoslavia? Do you mean they aren't doing that because they have
changed their minds and become patriots, re-fighting the Battle of
Kosovo?
> "People believe they are doing it", sure, but what about the facts and
> details. There seems little doubt that the Serbian paramilitaries were
> and continue to engage in 'ethnic cleansing', but there is also little
> doubt that the NATO controlled press (e.g. CNN) is complicit in
> propagating NATO disinformation and independent reports are few &
> far between.
It makes no sense to believe what you hear in the media when it comes
to justification. You clearly know this, but you keep complaining
about it as if you expect it to change. It makes no sense to believe
the government. It makes no sense to believe either side. It makes
sense to do your own analysis.
> >> > 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.
>
> Oh well, so much for the 'democracy' NATO was formed to
> protect.
What do you mean? Those democracies are still intact. Unless you
mean that even the published poll results are wrong and most people
really don't support the NATO action. Or do you mean you didn't
understand the fact that even democracies use force?
> >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.
>
> Good idea.
>
> When do we start?
>
> I believe the Greeks & Italians are already well underway.
You've been duped by the media then. But that movement was started
long ago. In my lifetime, the main effort was begun during the
Vietnam war. That's why we now get very upset when only three of our
soldiers are captured, not killed, and when only one of our airplanes
gets shot down. We used to accept that sort of thing. That's why we
have not sent in ground troops, even though ground troops are required
to achieve the military goal. That's why we only target objects of
military value. That's why we destroy those targets with smart bombs
(but also for economic reasons; they are more cost effective). These
are major changes in the way we enforce the rules of the system. But
it is still the same system. Despite the Vietnam protest, the system
still relies on the use of force as much as ever.
> >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.
>
> IMHO you don't have to be a Buddhist to reject short term
> individual greed in favour of morality and 'social capital',
> but it probably helps.
>
> >> 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?
>
> A good parroting of the irrational CNN line.
>
> How does Milosevic 'destabilise the entire region' to the degree
> that the exodus that started with the bombings does?
By doing what he has done. By forcing out hundreds of thousands of
people to become refugees in other economies. You keep saying the
bombing caused that, which implies he had no choice, that he was the
victim. But he did have choices. He chose the worst one. By forcing
everybody out, he made it easier for NATO to step up the bombing,
because he minimized the possibility of bombing Albanians by mistake.
And he could have agreed to the proposed deal, but he didn't. And he
still has choices. He can capitulate, but he doesn't. The region
*is* destabilized. NATO will not back down because it would mean
there is no possibility of enforcement, which democracies depend on
and which is one of the reasons NATO was created.
> And what sort of argument is "When should an organization like
> the Serb army led by someone like Milosevic be stopped by
> force?"?
It wasn't an argument. It was a question.
> Stop them from what?
Stop them from being a cause of the troubles in the region over the
last ten years. Don't say stop them from what. You know what. Your
argument is that there was less killing per unit time before the
bombing. So what? There were n killings per unit time before the
bombing. Now there are n+m killings per unit time. You weren't doing
all this protesting when there were only n killings, but n+m killings
has suddenly become too much for you to bear.
> How about "Never" if a way of stopping him without force is
> possible.
Is it possible?
> >> 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.
>
> A typical US style argument attempting to place all responsibility
> on the faction you don't like by simplistically attributing any
> result to a *single* unique cause. Like "Guns don't kill,
> people do".
Wait a minute! "attributing any result to a *single* unique cause" is
exactly what *you* did: "NATO bombings have sped up the ethnic
cleansing". *Your* claim that the single unique cause is the NATO
bombing is based on *your* assumption that the Serbs do not have free
will, ie they are not human. You are the one who sees the Serbs as
non-human. You are the one who believes their behavior is
deterministic. Why do you believe the Serbs are not human?
> The Kosovars are suffering from a situation which is the result of an
> interaction of many forces & motivations. Before NATO intervention,
> there were far fewer casualties and displacements than after.
> To try to paint NATO as free of responsibility without showing
> that the situation would be just as bad without their contribution
> is dishonest.
Wait a minute! Now you are accusing me of trying to "paint NATO as
free of responsibility". And you know your accusation is false,
because you have read what I said: "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."
> >> 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.
>
> Some Serbs *ARE* the Serbian opposition.
>
> Funny that the pro-government Serbs weren't able to so completely
> defeat the opposition until the bombings started isn't it?
How do you know it has been so completely defeated, as you say?
> >> 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.
>
> Very good point.
>
> Maybe when Clinton was bombing Iraq to protect his (blow) job.
>
> If we organise them now, we might be able to stop the NEXT
> atrocity.
That's right. but not if your purpose is is just to prevent bombing,
because that won't change the rules that generate the system that
creates situations that "require" bombing. You will be fighting this
same fight again in five, ten or twenty years.
> >It should have been organized to stop Milosevic and the
> >Serbs.
>
> It was, in Serbia and without Western support.
> It's gone now though, thanks to NATO.
Without *your* support you mean. You only take action when n killings
per unit time becomes n+m killings per unit time and some institution
decides to stop it by force.
> But as citizens of allegedly democratic countries, we should be
> organising to stop *our_own* governments from participating in
> these sorts of crimes.
Don't you see any irony in your statement? It reveals the problem but
you don't seem to be able to see it.
> "When they came to bomb the Libyans, I said nothing because I'm not
> a Libyan. When they came to bomb the Iraqis ...."
>
> God help you if they decide that Norway has a 'rogue
> government' Martin.
That won't make me think any different. I might be dead or I might be
on the run, or I might fight with the Norwegians, but I won't have any
illusions about what is happening. Anyway, norway already has a rogue
government. We have socialized medicine, and we like it. We own the
railroad and bus systems. We wish they were cheaper to use, but we
like them. We pay families to raise their children. Our police don't
carry guns, and we aren't allowed to own a gun for self defense.
Norway is a member of NATO.
> Maybe for the 'inhumane slaughter of minke whales' ;-).
>
> >The people who are protesting the bombing now were not
> >protesting the worsening situation in Jugoslavia.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Check http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/zap-english.htm
> or at least find some sort of alternative media source before you
> start parroting CNN lies.
I'm not parroting anything. These are my own obsevations. There was
no protest movement to stop the IMF from putting the economic system
of Yugoslavia in jeopardy. You weren't protesting the existence of
NATO. You accepted the existence of an institution whose existence
depended on its willingness to use force, as long as it never actually
used force. You aren't demanding that the UN be redefined to make it
useful in such circumstances. You are willing to accept the system
that depends on the use of force, as long as it never uses force.
> >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.
>
> Could it be, Martin, that you just don't see anything in the mainstream
> media until it becomes a CNN/NATO/US/UN issue, whereupon they pretend
> that noone was doing anything until they stepped in.
No. It couldn't be that. I didn't say *no one* was doing *anything*.
By now, you have read most of the writings of Chomsly, et al, on this
subject. You know that the system produces these results. But your
level of protest goes up by an order of magnitude *after* the bombing
starts. You can't be bothered to make a big noise at a point when it
can actually head off situations like the present one. Could it be
you don't really understand the problem? Could it be you protest now
because it is so easy to be self-righteous now, and because you need
to recover some self-esteem after so many years of letting things get
worse and worse? Why is it so hard to admit you really don't care
enough to really solve the problem?
> Before NATO drove the international observers and relief agencies out,
> the death rate due to military action was around 50 a week. It's
> impossible to say now but it's doubtless much higher. Maybe people
> *were* doing something, but it just didn't make good enough television
> to draw your attention.
But *I'm* not protesting. Nor would I be protesting had there been
more coverage in the media. Are you blaming the media now because you
didn't know what was going on? Is it their fault you were caught out
as an ignoramous? No. False. You knew from reading Chomsky what was
going on. It is the way the system works. You don't really have a
right to claim ignorance because the media and the government have
been pooling the wool over your eyes for ten years.
> I have been involved in community protests about Indonesian govt actions
> in East Timor and Australian government support of it since the mid 80s,
> but I'll bet that up until the US based media started paying attention
> about four years ago, noone was 'organising to prevent and defuse
> situations that NATO eventually decides to fix' regarding Timor in
> your eyes.
What community protests? I lived in Australia. I saw very little of
community protests in Adelaide over East Timor. Yes, there was
discussion of East Timor, but that is all it was. Discussion. The
discussions are still going on, and you can feel righteous that you
have been involved. But now, despite all the alleged protests,
violence is worsening in East Timor. Imagine that. It's happening
again. Your protests did not stop it. It's getting worse.
> >There were
> >no massive demonstrations when the IMF imposed stresses on the
> >Jugoslavian economy.
>
> Mores the pity.
>
> There *will* be protests about exactly this sort of thing all over
> Europe in June, culminating in the G7 (G8 now?) meeting on June 18.
>
> Gonna be there Martin?
No. I have said several times. I don't want to spend my life
protesting, because I believe it will ultimately fail. It will fail
because, far from changing the system, it validates it. I will rather
spend my life searching for a solution. But I'm an engineer. I
recognize that is the way I think. I don't intend to work against
myself.
> >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.
>
> Because now the government who claim to represent us have jumped
> in armed with ignorance, high explosives and lies about their
> motivations.
>
> It's one thing to do nothing about a bad situation, another to
> add to the problem.
Piss and moan about the government you elected. Piss and moan about
the system you tacitly approve. It won't change anything, but you'll
get some anger off your chest, and that's good for you.
> > Before the bombing, if those who are
> >protesting the bombing now cared, they didn't care enough to protest,
> >not on this list anyway.
>
> The list is mainly about media spin, which didn't exist until
> the media started paying attention.
I thought the list was about Chomsky's writings, whether about
politics or linguistics. But let that pass. Why do you want to
discuss media spin? Has its existence not been proved to your
satisfaction? Do you still expect the media to give you the unadorned
truth? Why not work to get your local school system to teach that TV
news programs are not to be believed? Why not petition your local
school district to introduce "The Chomsky Reader" as a required text?
> >> > 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.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> How is adding to the chorus of crap being put out by the military
> industrial propaganda machine contributing to a change in the structure?
Are you accusing me of doing that? I haven't done it?
> Actually, while we wait for the revolution, we might even be able to
> mitigate some of these abuses by adopting a more sceptical line towards
> the attempts to manipulate public morality.
See that's what I mean. You will *wait* for a revolution. You won't
cause one. And you admit that the best you can do is *mitigate*
abuses, but only *some* of them.
> >> 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.
>
> Scary.
Why scary? I lived my entire life under the threat of nuclear war?
Why should it suddenly become scary now?
> Sounds like the threat to world democracy by Milosevic is nothing
> compared to the threat posed by NATO.
>
> Do you advocate bombing NATO countries now, or are you in favour
> of appeasement?
>
> But seriously Martin, are you suggesting that we should agree
> with NATO because they're too tough to argue with?
In the absence of changes to the meta system from which the system is
generated, the best strategy for the world is for all nations to adopt
the "American Way", which basically means American democracy and
American capitalism - with socialist policies mixed in where allowed -
and *then* fix the problems. Clear the board and *then* start from a
homogenous, if not level, political and economic playing field.
> >> > 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.
>
>
> How sure are you that the UN would have voted in favour?
>
> A lot of member nations value sovereignity rather highly you know,
> even if they aren't fans of Milosevic.
I didn't say the UN *would* have voted in favor of it. I meant that
the UN is fatally flawed because it allows any of the five powers to
veto a resolution. Nothing is binding. If the US refuses to go along
with the outcome of a vote, the remaining members will not act to
enforce the result of the vote. The World Court is not binding
because there is no possibility to enforce its decisions.
>
> >> 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.
>
> But it matters whether CHOMSKY list members protested the situation
> in Kosovo before the bombings started?
>
> ?Huh?
You heard me. The media are a known quantity. You can't change it.
It will act as a strange attractor hovering around supporting whatever
results the government wants to produce, which is the result corporate
elites want it to produce, which is the result the system is set up to
produce, which is the system automatically generated by the
metamodel. Protests do matter, when they are done in time to prevent
the situation from occurring. The Vietnam protest was too late to
prevent the war in Vietname. It has at least prevented, so far, a
ground invasion of Yugoslavia. It has at least prevented, so far,
carpet bombing of Yugoslavia.
> >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.
>
> So what's the problem there?
>
> Beats having it function like NATO, as it is in Iraq, creating
> a huminitarian tragedy that dwarfs anything happening in the Balkans.
>
> The Red Cross does good work, and unlike CARE Australia, goes to great
> lengths to make sure that it's effectiveness isn't compromised due to
> partisan manipulation.
>
> >>
> >> > 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.
>
> So where do these people get off claiming that the UN can
> 'resoundingly' reflect international public opinion then?
>
> More bogus claims of a mandate if you ask me.
>
> Are you aware of the 'badwagon effect' in push polling whereby
> people are told that 'everyone agrees' on something before being
> asked their own opinion?
Sure. That's what I mean. You really 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.
>
> Gullible, manipulable people favour NATO action because no effort
> or expense has been spared in organising the media to make people
> think that aggravating the situation in aid of US strategic interests
> is actually 'decisive action to stop a wrong'.
The action is decisive. You can't possibly claim it isn't decisive.
It's purpose is to diminish, if not destroy, the military capability
of Yugoslavia, which is being used to do wrong. You can't claim the
Yugoslav8ian military is not being used to do wrong.
> They will continue to be in favour for as long as the media snow job
> can outshout reports of the actual *effect* of the campaign.
You have a very low opinion of people in general.
> Tell me Martin, what *is* the NATO military goal, as they repeatedly
> avoid any commitment to putting in ground troops? If you are just going
> to repeat the 'degrading Milosevic's military capacity' line,
> please explain what this means in terms of a viable exit strategy.
The NATO military goal is to destroy the military capability of the
Yugoslavian military. There is no exit strategy.
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
|
