In reply to Ken and Brad ... As at 23 March, it was, I think, importantly true that the KLA was not Albanian Kosovo and the Kosovar Serb militias were not mainstream Serbia. I dunno if anyone saw that Drenica Valley doco, but all the killing of Albanians in that seemed locals upon locals (with hierarchy sanction, no doubt, but mostly without the knowledge of the mainstream, who were fondly imagining a little counter-insurgency at worst). One thing that's been occurring to me about the gutless bombing from 15 000 feet (not that I'd be bombing from any lower meself - but then, I wouldn't be bombing), is that NATO is taking a self-legitimating role very much like the 'entrepreneur' of today. 'I take the risks; I take the profits,' proclaims today's capitalist - albeit through the mouths of Economics 101 lecturers everywhere - and so says NATO. But to bomb as they do is to transfer that risk to innocents (Albanian Kosovars demonstrably included) just as the capitalist transfers the risk to his workers (it is they who are sacked if the risk doesn't pay off). If they bombed at tree-top level, they'd not be slaughtering (a doubt of which I'm prepared to grant the benefit) columns and dormitories of refugees. To bomb as they do effectively passes 99% of the risk on to those in whose name they do this. Proof positive of bad faith, for mine (NATO bombers and Economics lecturers both) ... Waddya reckon? Rob. >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 > >
