I don't read this as denying the agency of the Serbs in ethnic cleansing.
Consider the following.
A known pedophile is taken to a picnic by Clinton and left alone with a number
of children. The pedophile assaults several children. Surely, there is a sense
in which Clinton caused the assaults. The tendencies
of the pedophile will not result in the attacks unless the opportunity for
doing so is present. Hence
given the circumstances Clinton leaving the pedophile alone with the children
is a sufficient condition (or cause) for the assaults. This is quite consistent
with the pedophile being the agent, and does not deny that agency.
In the same way, Paul first notes that before the bombing there was no
ethnic cleansing etc. The bombing provided the conditions for the cleansing
since it gave Milosevic the freedom to cleanse, and also to decimate the KLA at
the same time. The bombing was a sufficient condition or cause of ethnic
cleansing
etc. This is not inconsistent with and does not deny that the Serbs are the
agents.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Brad De Long wrote:
> >Barkley,
> > I have some difficulty with your whole discussion and comparison of
> >the situation in Turkey and Kosovo. The reason is fairly
> >straightforward.
> >
> >First, there was no genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced removal,
> >denial of language rights, etc. etc. in Kosovo prior to the bombing.
> >... [O]n a proportional basis, the Albanians were forcing out the
> >Serbs, not the opposite. (i.e. NATO should have been bombing Tirana,
> >not Beograd.)...
> >
> >It is we, members of NATO, that have caused the ethnic cleansing by
> >our bombing
> >
> >Paul Phillips
>
> Why this strange and pathetic attempt to deny the agency of those who are
> undertaking the ethnic cleansing? And why this attempt to make every Muslim
> in the region bar responsbility for the terrorist deeds of the KLA?
>
> Brad DeLong
