> > The more pertinent question for us is what should we do? To me > the greater human emergency is the Muslims, not the Serbs. > Muslims are suffering more in aggregate and individually than > Serbs. My starting point and priority is how to effect the > rescue of Muslims. I further think that such a rescue would > preclude most of the current threat to innocent Serbs. > > How to do it? Not, I would say, by focusing protest against NATO > bombing, which on this list and LBO often entails > "pogrom-denial," and in the real world is typically wound up with > isolationism. The case for the Muslims argues against > ineffectual bombing (which incidentally is destroying the land to > which the Muslims would like to return), and for peace-keeping > via ground troops. > > The no bombing/no genocide line has the merit of foregoing > callousness towards Muslims, but otherwise the 'no genocide' > component is meaningless. Pacifism here is meaningless as well. > Sometimes you have to pick a side. > > > I'd really rather not. I tried to read Hegel a few times and > always dozed off after about 20 pages. Don't blame you. There are many other philosophers besides Hegel. Any sort of political argument presupposes a moral view of the world or some sort of moral viewpoint.The clearer your moral viewpoint is and the better you defend it, your case will be all the much stronger. > > I'll leave the abstract construction to others with the expertise > and inclination. I'd rather simplify: HOW TO PROTECT INNOCENT > MUSLIMS IN KOSOVA? That's my preferred moral question of the > day. Acceptance of Serbian government's peace plan and offer of ceasefire. U.N.and/or E.U. monitoring team to make sure the plan is being implemented and enforced. What other options are there? > > This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have > attested. Saying so doesn't make it so. > Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to > you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate > atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are > biased, from what source would you accept as legitimate a report > of atrocities? If none, haven't you precluded such information > on spurious, a priori grounds? Well there are problems all around. Its the same problem that occurred in Cambodia in the 1970's when refugees were the only source of information. Some of their stories were true, others false and some exaggerated. Refugees can be a good source but one has to take extreme care because refugees are not neutral actors. > > If sending in troops to protect Muslims and secure Kosova is > escalation, that's what we need. That is a pretty big IF. Evidence and the way the situation is going so far suggests that sending in troops would have the opposite effect of what you say above. Would you be in favor of a U.N. peacekeeping mission? > Nor do I see any big regional > threat. Russia's hostility is premised on Nato taking over > Serbia, but it is not necessary to take over Serbia to secure > Kosova. If ground troops are send in, the invasion will have to be staged from a neutral country like Romania, Macedonia, Hungary or Bosnia. Various pundits have even suggested that staging may occur in Montenegro. The Serbian government and people will view this as a declaration of war on it, which will destabilize the region for many decades to come. > > I thought you were some kind of Leninist. What's your problem > with death and destruction? Ha. Guilt by association, ad hominem and fallacy of composition all in one. Which is it? > > > > The effect of NATO's actions over the past few weeks has been > the exact opposite of what it intended. (assuming that NATO > intended to do good viz. save Kosovo, its people, ensure > stability in the region and weaken Milosevic). > > > Quite true. > > > It follows that if NATO does the exact opposite of what it is > doing now ( i.e. stops bombing and starts fair negotiations) it > will have the effect that NATO intended when it first started the > bombing. Give peace a chance!> > > No, that doesn't follow one tiny bit. Yes it does by modus todus. If P then Q. ~P so ~ Q. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo then not bombing will lead to not destroying Kosovo. > A cessation of all bombing > and an invitation to negotiation simply affords Milo & Co. the > opportunity to do what they like with Kosova at their leisure. *Bombing* has lead Milosevic to do whatever he likes with Kosovo. Without the war, there were constraints on what he could do. I'm not sure what those constraints were, but you agree that bombing has made the situation worse. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo and not bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo we have a Catch-22. In which case I propose: 1) minimization of all suffering by: 2) Immediate acceptance of the Serbian government's peace plan. If they are to be held at their word, this entails a high degree of autonomy and self-government for Kosovo. The problem is the implementation and enforcement of the peace plan. 3)U.N. peacekeeping force to witness (2) and to ensure the rights of the Muslim minority in Yugoslavia to be protected as a minority. There are over 20 minorities living in Serbia presently whose rights as a minority are not being discriminated against. > > It's the Chamberlain solution. > > > No, but the same holds for NATO vis a vis Serbia. Thus NATO has > no right to destroy Serbia because it elected Milosevic. >> > > That's not why Nato is "destroying" (sic) Serbia. That's what NATO says, but their motives are very much open to question because of their actions vis a vis nations like Colombia and Turkey or Africa where far worse humanitarian disasters are taking place and have been taking place for some time. > > I really don't care. So you have no respect for international law or national sovereignty? > If Milo has the "right" to liquidate > Muslims, then I don't care whether or not anybody else has the > "right" to stop him. All I care about is that somebody do so. > The UN is dysfunctional in this regard, since there are too many > countries (China and Russia, in particular) with a malignant > interest in vetoing any serious effort to support > self-determination for an oppressed national group. Why is > obvious. Milo is not liquidating Muslims. China and Russia may not support self-determination but surely they support autonomy for Kosovo or its being made into a Republic of Yugoslavia. Compromise? > > Every case will stand or fall on its merits. Yes > This happens to be > one instance where Nato's case -- given a different prosecution > of the war -- could be pretty good. Saying so doesn't make it so. Sam Pawlett
