In addition to my suggestion to Jared that he should reconsider his position
on Milosevic and Chomsky, without a danger to forget the moment of US-Euro
imperialism and their crimes in the region- crimes which Yugoslavs are not
likely to forget- I am sending another Chomsky epistle- answer to some nerd
advocating new NATO intervention on ZNet forum. Chomsky is fighting this
line of argumentation masterly. And he is reminding us, again, that things
are never simple when it comes to this sort of situation, and that we
shouldn't choose "lesser evil" in political realm but fight every evil
instead. Difficult task? It is.
"Between two evils don't make me choose the lesser one!" Karl Kraus said.
Please don't make me choose between NATO and Milosevic, as my friend, young
anarchist, like to say!
In struggle,
Andrej
---------------------------------------
Reply from NC,
Since you've changed the issue, and misread the
last response, I'll add it below, for
clarification, and to save time instead of
repeating.
Your first point is that you: 'don't think the
question "Which way to democracy?" is an academic
one in this context.'
Nor do I. It's a highly relevant question. The
question that was "academic," however, was a
totally different one: whether we should "call
for NATO to bomb, invade, destroy what's left of
the society, and impose foreign rule," in response
to the popular will in Serbia, as you seemed to
be suggesting.
Putting the misstatement aside, you then proceed
to withdraw what seemed to be your suggestion.
You now say that what you meant to propose was:
"something that already exists: second-class
status of Yugoslavia in Europe, and a trade system
that doesn't exactly favor it" -- right or wrong,
but hardly "NATO colonialism."
Two questions then arise: (1) why do you propose
this as a furious challenge, since no one in the
forum, to my recollection, has raised the matter
or taken a position on it?: (2) now that you have
raised the question, in a manner that hardly
facilitated discussion of it, what position should
we take on it?
On (1), I'd suggest you might want to think about
it, but we can put that aside too.
Question (2) requires answers to a variety of
others. Some of them have to do with imposition
of sanctions. Among them are these. Should the
US impose sanctions on all countries that have
regimes as hostile to functioning democracy as
Milosevic's Serbia, or that have records as bad as
his? Or just in this case? And if only in this
case, then why is that singled out? And if there
is an answer to that, then what attitude should
we take towards yet another act of unilateralism
on the part of a great power with an ample record
of brutality and violence of its own, not only
in the past but right now? Should we support that
power when it adds yet another country to its
unilateral sanctions list? And more generally,
under what conditions, and in what form, are
sanctions a legitimate and appropriate measure,
whether imposed unilaterally (the overwhelming
majority, the US being the agent), or by NATO
(which means essentially the same thing, given US
dominance of NATO), the UN, or in some other way?
There are all fair questions, and there are many
considerations. Of course, the burden of proof is
always on those who call for some form of
intervention, sanctions in this case. That's
universally taken for granted. Assuming that, the
first task of the advocate of sanctions is to seek
to determine the attitude of the people against
whom they are directed. Often that's very
difficult; in this case it happens to be easier
than most, since by comparative standards there is
a fair amount of public expression. So the first
task faced by the advocate of sanctions is to show
that the population of Serbia favor that move:
they are pleading with the US (or NATO) to impose
sanctions. If so, that's certainly an argument
for doing so. If not, then the advocate of
sanctions has the task of showing that the move
should be taken over the objections of the
population we are seeking to help. When you've
dealt with these two questions, we can move on to
the next ones.
It could be that this procedure would lead to the
conclusion that things should be left as they are,
as you suggest. As I mentioned, I don't recall
the question being raised here before. But more
is needed than your insistence that it is right,
without even facing the most elementary
questions.
Other questions arise as well. Is maintaining
sanctions the best way to facilitate moves towards
internal democracy in Serbia? Or would it be more
effective to draw Serbia into the general
structure of Europe? Or something else? And what
do the people of the country feel about that?
Again, these are the questions to be faced by
someone who is serious about imposition of
sanctions.
Miranda Vickers is perhaps the leading historian
of Kosovo, and very strongly anti-Milosevic. I
quoted her conclusion on elections. Your
refutation of it is that you say she is wrong.
I'm afraid that is not very convincing.
As for the "original issue," it's a good one, and
I hope that you will be willing to face it,
particularly since you (rightly) feel strongly
about it. So far in this discussion you have
refused to face it -- which is OK, answers aren't
easy. As to how we should proceed to fact it
seriously, I've already commented. If you have
something new to add, I'll be more than pleased to
consider it, as I'm sure others will be as well.
Noam Chomsky
At 09:32 AM 9/3/00 +0100, you wrote:
>
>From: "Jerry Netuddki"
>
>Dear Professor,
>
>We have a regime that makes every effort to retain power,
>including murder (Curuvija, the Draskovic entourage, etc.)
>or sudden disappearance (Stambolic, etc) of opposition
>members. A regime that counters the will of the population
>with applied violence.
>
>I am not calling for NATO to repeat its last year's failure;
>they killed a bunch of people and left Milosevic in power.
>However, if (as we seek possible solutions to the question
>above) NATO does have a solution which can be targeted
>exclusively against Milosevic, the popular "Slobo, save
>Serbia, kill yourself!" slogan does seem to ring along this
>line.
>
>By NATO colonialism I meant something that already exists:
>second-class status of Yugoslavia in Europe, and a trade
>system that doesn't exactly favor it. Milosevic boasts he
>"protects the country from NATO colonialism", while he's
>actually exploiting it far worse, as his clique's private
>colony.
>
>On what grounds do I refute Vickers' observation that
>Milosevic would have been voted out if the Kosovar Albanians
>had not boycotted earlier elections? On the grounds that
>Milosevic would have stolen the elections just the same, it
>would meant just more ballot boxes to "work on".
>
>But, let's not digress. The original issue still remains:
>how to counter armed violence that thwarts attempts of
>democracy?
>
>
Reply from NC,
Let's accept your factual claims for the sake of
argument, though it would
be helpful if you would document them. On these
grounds, you advocate NATO
colonization of Yugoslavia: that is, an invasion
to conquer Serbia (or
what's left of it after an invasion) and institute
a colonial regime. Are
you suggesting that that would be welcomed by the
population? By the
various factions of the opposition, for example?
Can you refer us to the
popular demonstrations calling for NATO to bomb
and invade (there have been
plenty of anti-Milosevic demonstrations over the
years, and the Albanian
Kosovar Parliament -- illegal, but not barred by
force -- had openly
declared independence under Milosevic's rule)? Or
the calls for bombing,
invasion, and occupation by dissidents in the
West? As for the factions of
the opposition, they are far from united, and that
has been one of their
problems for years, something they themselves have
bewailed for a long time.
Suppose Milosevic steals the election. That's
surely not unlikely. In fact,
that he will try to do so is an almost inevitable
consequence of the war
crimes indictment, hence an expected consequence
(assuming rationality).
That he will necessarily succeed, whatever the
oppoisition does, is obvious
to you, but again it would be interesting to know
your grounds. For
example, on what grounds do you refute the
observation of historian Miranda
Vickers, hardly pro-Milosevic, that he would have
been voted out if the
Kosovar Albanians had not boycotted earlier
elections?
"Which way to democracy then?" The way to
democracy should respect the will
of the population. If they are calling for NATO to
bomb, invade, destroy
what's left of the society, and impose foreign
rule, as you seem to be
suggesting, then one would at least have to
consider that option. But the
question is academic, unless the claim can be
shown to be plausible.
Outsiders therefore have to seek different ways to
enhance the prospects
for democracy by encouraging and supporting
internal forces that are
committed to constructive socioeconomic and
political development. One
would hardly expect much from governments; their
policies are shaped by
different interests. People can act, however.
Acting to support
constructive developments somewhere else is never
easy. There are better
and worse ways. The worst that I can think of is
the one you suggest --
unless of course you provide firm evidence that
the population is pleading
to be invaded, in which case your proposal would
at least have to be
considered; and recall that always, the proposal
to bomb, invade, and
impose foreign military occupation must bear quite
a substantial burden of
proof. Perhaps that burden can be met, but not
simply by assertion.
Noam Chomsky
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
