Courtesy of Prof. Phillips: > The Sunday Telegraph 25 > April 1999 > > NATO STARTED BOMBING TO HELP MILOSEVIC > > by Edward Luttwak Like I suggested last week (two weeks ago?) in "Nato and Milosevic: Lovers' Quarrel." It follows that a cessation of bombing, the retention of the Milosevic regime, and some kind of half-assed solution (sell-out) of Kosovo was the U.S./NATO aim at the start. This is precisely the solution called for now by all the lefter-than-thou anti-imperialists (sic). So who is the stooge for NATO? The flies in the ointment of stable, good-for-business tyranny on the periphery of the EU were first, the KLA, who engaged in terrorism in order to provoke Milo to go ape (they understood his history in Bosnia and had his profile down) and bring in Nato, and second, Milo, who being an ape went much further than anticipated rather than make a deal. Since the U.S. public is unlikely to buy into a serious ground war, the only question is when Milo will stop being an idiot and accept a compromise in order to stop the bombing. Kosova will be screwed, and some folks will feel good about helping to block NATO's evil plans to conquer the Balkans, plans that were never made because there is no need for Nato to conquer the Balkans. The Balkans are already fated to integrate into EU/IMF capitalism. "Yugoslavia" will be lining up with all the rest, though they will have moved to the rear of the queue. Russia can't sell out soon enough. Fear of a nascent working class in the former Soviet Union? It is to laugh. The way to truly destabilize the New Order in Europe would be to insist on a little justice, such as -- but not limited to -- the right to self-determination for *really* oppressed nationalities, such as in Kosova. What a calamity! National enclaves throughout the world raising questions about racism and other types of chauvinism, and about underdevelopment of their regions vis-a-vis the rest of their nations. If Kosova was liberated, what would we say to the Kurds or the Palestinians? Carping about the hypocrisy of Nato supporting Kosovo but not others is seeing this affair backwards. Nato CANNOT support Kosova because it raises the profile of other troublesome claimants. This was not about splitting up Yugoslavia; there was hardly anything left of it anyway. It was about containing the factional strife within what remains of Yugoslavia -- of preventing further violence and refugees. Milo and the KLA didn't follow the plan; each anticipated dissatisfaction with what they would come out with. Milo's willingness to be ruthless has improved his bargaining position. The KLA was being dealt out and acted out of desperation, and probably for naught (in retrospect). There is a slim chance that NATO could follow Blair's lead and decide to really topple the Serbian regime. One might ask, if war is so much beloved by capitalism, why the U.S. hasn't already gone into Iraq and done this very thing. In the Iraqi case a military conquest has already been shown to be eminently practical. Of course, in neither Iraq nor Serbia would "nation-building" be easy. But neither regime is all that objectionable at their cores to the West. The fundamental arguments are over secondary matters. I could be wrong, or you could all have been hoodwinked. Presently there is strong public support for bombing; we know Willie is a close reader of polls. This means that in principle Nato could bomb indefinitely -- as in Iraq -- until they get whatever they want. Thus if they cease bombing it means they didn't want much to begin with. I'd say that if Nato settles for a deal with Milo that allows this "war criminal" to save face and retain most of Kosova, it proves the fix was in from the get-go. If they try to invade and take over Serbia proper, the Nato Imperialist Crusade thesis is upheld. mbs
