G'day Max. Reckon you're taking some liberties with this lot: >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). Firstly, most of us opposed the bombing because it could not, in itself, possibly realise the professed ends in whose name it was conducted. People were gonna get killed, maimed, dispossessed and dislocated for no reason that had anything to do with NATO's crocodile tears and apple pie bleatings. Secondly, whatever solutions (and not all of us professed a clue as to what might have solved the problems as at 22 March) were available at the outset, are now mostly beyond reach (eg. Serbian anti-Milosovic dynamics, the Serbian parliamentary compromise of 23 April, Rugova's gradualist strategy etc), and the scope of possible positive changes has been severely limited by NATO's vicious nonsense. Thirdly, bombing and impoverishing people is a great way to exacerbate identities like those of the bloody nationalists. No-one's bombing and impoverishing Murdoch, and he hasn't a nationalist bone in his body, whereas a lot of people living around his farm here in southern NSW have long been doing it very tough and have just voted a self-identified 'national-socialist' Hansonite into the state upper house. A sad trend in the west these days is that as capital gets more internationalist, the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie are becoming defensively and belligerently nationalist. You gotta multiply that by some significant factor to allow for the life experience of a Serb or an Albanian. Both are likely to come out of this with shining eyes to match their emaciated features. Lastly, to come up with a 'solution' now is to respond to a whole new priority - that of stopping the slaughter and destruction wrought by NATO bombs, Serb responses, and those of the almost wholly newly constituted KLA. Serbs and Albanaian Kosovars alike are gonna be paying a big price for it, but not to pay that price is now to pay an altogether bigger one. In short, very few of us opposed the principle of Kosovar 'autonomy'/'independence' (although I, for one - & mebbe Rugova for two - didn't have a clue how it might come about in any meaningful way - in the short term at least). We merely opposed - and still oppose - 'strategic bombing. Because it kills and impoverishes the innocent and PRECISELY BECAUSE IT COULD NOT HELP, IN ANY WAY, ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF ANY OF YUGOSLAVIA'S PEOPLES. As an afterthought, would it be a bit paranoid of me to inquire into the timing of the NATO strike? I mean, if Serbia's parliament did do something very like what Serbia did in 1914 (ie accept pretty well everything the imposed Rambo-eh document demanded with only the proviso that the occupying troops not be under NATO control) on the 23rd of March, might we discern in NATO's immediate resort to bombing (the following morning) evidence that what was sought was a pretext and not the sudden appearance of waht might have been a solution? >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 conditions under which this integration must now take place (esp. the position from which Yugoslavia would be dealing) have been much altered by the bombing - because the bombing has destroyed so much of Yugoslavia's productive capacity - the WB/IMF can now have their wicked way with a desperate pile of ashes and skinny people (who are even now becoming refugees themselves - again withouit a skerrick of western sympathy and aid). >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. Pointing at inconsistency was not the whole anti-bombing argument - and it was not the theme of that critique by any means. It was merely presented in evidence as reason to suspect something other than NATO's PR bleatings was at the root of the adventure. I think it's pretty compelling evidence meself. >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. Wars in deserts, against bemused conscripts, ain't wars in mountains against a people fighting for its very existence as they see it. And Milosovic is not just a man, he's also a representative of a way of seeing. We have made more Serbian nationalists in a month than Milo's machinations produced in a decade. We won't have heard the last of this if and when we do put Milo in his box ... >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. I just don't understand you on this, Max! You say a fix was in - one that did not have the Albanian Kosovar aspirations at its core at all - and yet you ridicule those who opposed the bombing on precisely these grounds! >If they try to invade and take over Serbia proper, the Nato Imperialist Crusade thesis is upheld. This doesn't follow at all, Maz - and you bloody know it. Imperialist crusades ain't what they used to be. The WB/IMF is the gunboat/garrison of the late twentieth century. Sometimes, a little traditional capital destruction is initially required to get 'em in there, that's all. If they go in mob-handed, it'll be because their bungling has put NATO's hegemony on the line. An organisation would be fighting for its own survival, as organisations do. I can only hope the stakes inherent in such a daft gamble are apparent to our head-butchers. Cheers, Rob.
