-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Richard Hugus
Sent: 13 February 2001 01:04
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Debate With Chomsky On Yugoslav Elections
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Richard Hugus
Sent: 13 February 2001 01:04
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Debate With Chomsky On Yugoslav Elections
An Exchange With Noam Chomsky On The Yugoslav Elections
The Left has been massively co-opted by United States propaganda regarding Yugoslavia. So effective has this propaganda been that almost two years after the US/NATO bombing in 1999 there is still no defense of Yugoslavia that can't be stifled by reference to "Serb atrocities" or "the brutal dictator, Milosevic."
The following correspondence illustrates how one Left critic, while appearing to condemn the United States and NATO for their war on Yugoslavia, nevertheless ends up justifying it. Professor Noam Chomsky wants to have it both ways: he opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia, yet repeated propaganda about Milosevic and Serb atrocities that was used to justify the bombing in the first place. He has acknowledged US interference in the Yugoslav elections, yet denies that this affected the outcome of those elections. He is opposed to the present IMF/World Bank takeover of Yugoslavia, yet supports the elections which made this takeover possible (agreeing with a UPI reporter who says that the elections "accurately express the democratic aspirations of the Serbian people"). Finally, Chomsky, more than anyone, has taught us how little we can trust the mainstream press, yet he uses this press as his main source of information.
The unfortunate reader who questions Professor Chomsky about these contradictions, as I did, will be surprised at the responses: that they could be so imperious and abusive; and that they could use such tortured argument -- argument in which words themselves can be had both ways.
Many of us trust intellectual leaders to sort
out the truth for them from the avalanche of lies we are presented with in the
mainstream press. But what if these leaders have unwittingly mixed the lies and
the truth together, making it impossible for us to take necessary and decisive
action? And what of the people - in this case, of Yugoslavia - who will lose
their cause, their country, and perhaps their lives, because of this
betrayal?
The following correspondence took place between January 7 and February 1, 2001.
Richard Hugus
-------------------------------------------
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Forgive me for forwarding the article on Yugoslav elections ["What Is Going On in Yugoslavia and The World? 'No Room for Abstentions!'" by Prof. Ivan Angelov http://emperors-clothes.com/indexe.htm ] to you without an introduction. The reason I sent it to you is because of a ZNet piece you wrote about two months ago ["Chomsky Comments on Milosevic Ouster, etc." http://www.zmag.org/chomskyonelec.htm] comparing the Yugoslav elections which resulted in the ousting of Milosevic to, of all things, the end of apartheid in South Africa.
My belief is that the elections in Yugoslavia were grossly
manipulated by the usual cast of characters representing the United
States-- the CIA, USAID, the Soros Foundation, the State Department,
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Forgive me for forwarding the article on Yugoslav elections ["What Is Going On in Yugoslavia and The World? 'No Room for Abstentions!'" by Prof. Ivan Angelov http://emperors-clothes.com/indexe.htm ] to you without an introduction. The reason I sent it to you is because of a ZNet piece you wrote about two months ago ["Chomsky Comments on Milosevic Ouster, etc." http://www.zmag.org/chomskyonelec.htm] comparing the Yugoslav elections which resulted in the ousting of Milosevic to, of all things, the end of apartheid in South Africa.
My belief is that the elections in Yugoslavia were grossly
manipulated by the usual cast of characters representing the United
States-- the CIA, USAID, the Soros Foundation, the State Department,
the Clinton Administration, the Pentagon, and
Congress. In fact, I
see no difference between the Yugoslav
elections and the undermining
of elections in a multitude of other countries
by the U.S. in the
last 50 years.
The Emperor's New Clothes web site from which the Angelov article was
taken has numerous other articles which shed light on all the
propaganda that has made the US/NATO war against Yugoslavia possible.
I hope that you will read some of them.
Respectfully,
Richard Hugus
Falmouth, MA
-
Dear Mr. Hugus,
I didn't receive the article that you said you forwarded to me. Perhaps
it's on the way. I think, however, that you might have another look at the
Znet piece of mine to which you refer. There is a reference to the end of
Apartheid, but you have seriously misread it: the implication is virtually
the opposite of the conclusion you drew.
There's no doubt that "there was extensive interference by the West" (to
quote the Znet piece). I've read a good bit of material on the site you
last 50 years.
The Emperor's New Clothes web site from which the Angelov article was
taken has numerous other articles which shed light on all the
propaganda that has made the US/NATO war against Yugoslavia possible.
I hope that you will read some of them.
Respectfully,
Richard Hugus
Falmouth, MA
-
Dear Mr. Hugus,
I didn't receive the article that you said you forwarded to me. Perhaps
it's on the way. I think, however, that you might have another look at the
Znet piece of mine to which you refer. There is a reference to the end of
Apartheid, but you have seriously misread it: the implication is virtually
the opposite of the conclusion you drew.
There's no doubt that "there was extensive interference by the West" (to
quote the Znet piece). I've read a good bit of material on the site you
mention, of varying quality. And many
other sources as well. My own
judgment is that your comparison is very far from valid. For the moment, I
judgment is that your comparison is very far from valid. For the moment, I
see no reason to qualify what I wrote, or to
question the conclusions of
Serb left militants on whom I in part relied and whose reaction is quite
different from yours. I will be happy to look at other evidence, of
course.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Thanks for your reply. Here is the article I sent you before. If you've seen The Emperor's New Clothes site, perhaps you've already read it.
Richard
Dear Mr. Hugus,
Thanks for sending the article. It's not clear to me why you think it illuminates the situation. There are only a few allusions to Yugoslavia, and no discussion at all of the crucial question: independent of the outside intervention (which is familiar and uncontroversial), what were the internal forces within Yugoslavia? We have a good deal of information about that, and it does not lend much credibility to the analogies that are proposed.
Incidentally, these same kinds of questions have to be asked even about much more extreme cases of foreign intervention, like Nicaragua in 1990. No time to go into it now, but I was in Nicaragua a number of times, up to late 1989, at the invitation of the University and Jesuits (both sympathetic to the Sandinistas) in 1989, and was giving talks and having discussions in which I expressed my concerns that they would be defeated in an election for reasons quite apart from the US aggression and terror. I wasn't surprised when it happened, despite the vast differences between this case and Yugoslavia.
Superficial analogies are just not useful. One has to look at the actual circumstances and factors in the case at hand.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Granted that the Angelov article is not about Yugoslavia from the inside -- the writer speaks from Bulgaria -- but far from containing "only a few allusions", the article is entirely about Yugoslavia.
Yes, there is "a good deal of information" about forces internal to Yugoslavia. The question is, is any of it trustworthy? Coverage in the mainstream press of the "popular revolution" which brought down Milsoevic could hardly be called objective. The U.S. press, which supported the 1999 bombing and which demonized the Serbs and Milosevic, obviously has an axe to grind. So do DOS newspapers funded by the U.S. These are the only sources you've cited so far.
I'm sure that there was opposition to Milosevic inside Yugoslavia, but because of massive U.S. interference in the affairs of this country, and in the elections, and because of the unprecedented propaganda that has been created, it is very difficult for us know the truth about that opposition.
You mention Nicaragua. So does Angelov, who compares the elections in Nicaragua in 1990 with the recent elections in Yugoslavia. Both had in common the threat of further violence from the U.S. should things go against U.S. wishes. You say the Sandinistas may have been "defeated in an election for reasons quite apart from the US aggression and terror." Perhaps the same is true of Milosevic. But, again, how will we ever know? What is the point of discussing such things, in either case, given the fantastic level of outside interference? Indeed, who would think U.S. aggression and terror could somehow be separated from the equation?
This is like saying: Yes, a herd of elephants trampled the flowers, but they were going to die anyway. Or, taking it a step further: Since the flowers were going to die anyway, perhaps the elephants aren't too much to blame for trampling them. This becomes apologetics for U.S. terror.
Richard Hugus
Dear Mr. Hugus,
Your belief that because of US propaganda "we can never know" is true if you mean "know with certainty," but then we can't know anything about physics with certainty either. It is false if you mean "we can never plausibly conclude," in both cases. That seems clear enough.
As for the Angelov article, it is "about Yugoslavia" in that it informs us of his beliefs about Yugoslavia, without any support for these beliefs.
Serb left militants on whom I in part relied and whose reaction is quite
different from yours. I will be happy to look at other evidence, of
course.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Thanks for your reply. Here is the article I sent you before. If you've seen The Emperor's New Clothes site, perhaps you've already read it.
Richard
Dear Mr. Hugus,
Thanks for sending the article. It's not clear to me why you think it illuminates the situation. There are only a few allusions to Yugoslavia, and no discussion at all of the crucial question: independent of the outside intervention (which is familiar and uncontroversial), what were the internal forces within Yugoslavia? We have a good deal of information about that, and it does not lend much credibility to the analogies that are proposed.
Incidentally, these same kinds of questions have to be asked even about much more extreme cases of foreign intervention, like Nicaragua in 1990. No time to go into it now, but I was in Nicaragua a number of times, up to late 1989, at the invitation of the University and Jesuits (both sympathetic to the Sandinistas) in 1989, and was giving talks and having discussions in which I expressed my concerns that they would be defeated in an election for reasons quite apart from the US aggression and terror. I wasn't surprised when it happened, despite the vast differences between this case and Yugoslavia.
Superficial analogies are just not useful. One has to look at the actual circumstances and factors in the case at hand.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Granted that the Angelov article is not about Yugoslavia from the inside -- the writer speaks from Bulgaria -- but far from containing "only a few allusions", the article is entirely about Yugoslavia.
Yes, there is "a good deal of information" about forces internal to Yugoslavia. The question is, is any of it trustworthy? Coverage in the mainstream press of the "popular revolution" which brought down Milsoevic could hardly be called objective. The U.S. press, which supported the 1999 bombing and which demonized the Serbs and Milosevic, obviously has an axe to grind. So do DOS newspapers funded by the U.S. These are the only sources you've cited so far.
I'm sure that there was opposition to Milosevic inside Yugoslavia, but because of massive U.S. interference in the affairs of this country, and in the elections, and because of the unprecedented propaganda that has been created, it is very difficult for us know the truth about that opposition.
You mention Nicaragua. So does Angelov, who compares the elections in Nicaragua in 1990 with the recent elections in Yugoslavia. Both had in common the threat of further violence from the U.S. should things go against U.S. wishes. You say the Sandinistas may have been "defeated in an election for reasons quite apart from the US aggression and terror." Perhaps the same is true of Milosevic. But, again, how will we ever know? What is the point of discussing such things, in either case, given the fantastic level of outside interference? Indeed, who would think U.S. aggression and terror could somehow be separated from the equation?
This is like saying: Yes, a herd of elephants trampled the flowers, but they were going to die anyway. Or, taking it a step further: Since the flowers were going to die anyway, perhaps the elephants aren't too much to blame for trampling them. This becomes apologetics for U.S. terror.
Richard Hugus
Dear Mr. Hugus,
Your belief that because of US propaganda "we can never know" is true if you mean "know with certainty," but then we can't know anything about physics with certainty either. It is false if you mean "we can never plausibly conclude," in both cases. That seems clear enough.
As for the Angelov article, it is "about Yugoslavia" in that it informs us of his beliefs about Yugoslavia, without any support for these beliefs.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Regarding your October ZNet article:
I said that in this article you compared the Yugoslav elections which
resulted in the ousting of Milosevic to the end
of apartheid in South
Africa. I'm not sure how you can say I "seriously misread" this.
Your exact words were:
"But ridding the country of Milosevic doesn't in itself
herald a final victory for the people of Serbia, who are
responsible for the achievement. There's plenty of
historical evidence to the contrary, including very recent
evidence. It's hard to think of a more spectacular recent
achievement than the overthrow of South Africa's Apartheid
horror . . . "
Perhaps the difference between us is that you saw the elections as
legitimate; I saw them as a fraud.
The sources cited in your ZNet article -- United Press International,
New York Times, London Times, BBC, Boston Globe, London Financial
Times -- are all mainstream press, and the mainstream press, though
mildly critical of U.S interference in the Yugoslav elections,
created the lie that Kostunica's victory was the desire, and the
outcome of the efforts, of the Serb people themselves.
My view is that the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) and the
elections which put it into power were bought and paid for in full by
the United States with, literally, millions of dollars of overt
funding. This was accompanied by the threat of continued sanctions,
the terror induced by NATO's massive bombing campaign, by the ongoing
military occupation of a part of Serbia (Kosovo), the intimidation
of "Naval exercises" being conducted in the Adriatic at the time of
the elections, and by protestors hired to riot (for example, burning
the same Belgrade TV station that NATO had earlier bombed).
The fraud involved in the Yugoslav election was 1,000 times worse
that what we just witnessed the election of George Bush Jr. in the
United States. Under such circumstances, how can anyone possibly say
that the popular will of the people prevailed?
Richard Hugus
Dear Mr. Hugus,
You raise several issues. In order.
The passage you cite does not compare Milosevic's regime with Apartheid
South Africa, and does not even hint at such a comparison. South Africa is
brought up to illustrate the fact that even in extreme cases of overthrow
of a horrendous regime the popular victory leaves plenty of problems. A
fortiori, the overthrow of Milosevic's ugly and hated regime, even though
nothing like the Apartheid regime of South Africa, leaves plenty of
problems. In fact, the problems that remain have some similarity to South
Africa's even though Milosevic's corrupt and brutal regime had virtually no
resemblance to the Apartheid regime. You are drawing completely false and
unwarranted inferences from the passage you are misreading.
Second, you regard the elections as a fraud, and believe I saw them as
"legitimate." Again, you are misreading. The article clearly says that
"there was extensive interference by the West and by Milosevic's harshly
repressive (but by no means "totalitarian") apparatus." So the elections
were anything but legitimate. But that does not mean that they were a
fraud. These are not the only options, plainly.
The mainstream press didn't "create the lie that Kostunica's victory was
the desire, and the outcome of the efforts, of the Serb people themselves."
In fact, the mainstream press labored hard to show that it was the outcome
of the NATO bombing, for obvious reasons. That's stated explicitly,
clearly, and accurately at the beginning of the statement, as is the reason
why I cited reports that nevertheless made it through the standard media
barrage and pointed out the obvious: that it was the outcome of the efforts
of the Serb people who continued to strongly oppose the bombing, exactly
contrary to th standard line of the mainstream press.
That leaves your belief that the people of Serbia did not want to overthrow
the Milosevic gang, and that the appearance that they did was result of a
pay off from the West. That runs counter to any evidence I know, and since
you present none (nor has anyone else, to my knowledge), I can't comment.
Africa. I'm not sure how you can say I "seriously misread" this.
Your exact words were:
"But ridding the country of Milosevic doesn't in itself
herald a final victory for the people of Serbia, who are
responsible for the achievement. There's plenty of
historical evidence to the contrary, including very recent
evidence. It's hard to think of a more spectacular recent
achievement than the overthrow of South Africa's Apartheid
horror . . . "
Perhaps the difference between us is that you saw the elections as
legitimate; I saw them as a fraud.
The sources cited in your ZNet article -- United Press International,
New York Times, London Times, BBC, Boston Globe, London Financial
Times -- are all mainstream press, and the mainstream press, though
mildly critical of U.S interference in the Yugoslav elections,
created the lie that Kostunica's victory was the desire, and the
outcome of the efforts, of the Serb people themselves.
My view is that the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) and the
elections which put it into power were bought and paid for in full by
the United States with, literally, millions of dollars of overt
funding. This was accompanied by the threat of continued sanctions,
the terror induced by NATO's massive bombing campaign, by the ongoing
military occupation of a part of Serbia (Kosovo), the intimidation
of "Naval exercises" being conducted in the Adriatic at the time of
the elections, and by protestors hired to riot (for example, burning
the same Belgrade TV station that NATO had earlier bombed).
The fraud involved in the Yugoslav election was 1,000 times worse
that what we just witnessed the election of George Bush Jr. in the
United States. Under such circumstances, how can anyone possibly say
that the popular will of the people prevailed?
Richard Hugus
Dear Mr. Hugus,
You raise several issues. In order.
The passage you cite does not compare Milosevic's regime with Apartheid
South Africa, and does not even hint at such a comparison. South Africa is
brought up to illustrate the fact that even in extreme cases of overthrow
of a horrendous regime the popular victory leaves plenty of problems. A
fortiori, the overthrow of Milosevic's ugly and hated regime, even though
nothing like the Apartheid regime of South Africa, leaves plenty of
problems. In fact, the problems that remain have some similarity to South
Africa's even though Milosevic's corrupt and brutal regime had virtually no
resemblance to the Apartheid regime. You are drawing completely false and
unwarranted inferences from the passage you are misreading.
Second, you regard the elections as a fraud, and believe I saw them as
"legitimate." Again, you are misreading. The article clearly says that
"there was extensive interference by the West and by Milosevic's harshly
repressive (but by no means "totalitarian") apparatus." So the elections
were anything but legitimate. But that does not mean that they were a
fraud. These are not the only options, plainly.
The mainstream press didn't "create the lie that Kostunica's victory was
the desire, and the outcome of the efforts, of the Serb people themselves."
In fact, the mainstream press labored hard to show that it was the outcome
of the NATO bombing, for obvious reasons. That's stated explicitly,
clearly, and accurately at the beginning of the statement, as is the reason
why I cited reports that nevertheless made it through the standard media
barrage and pointed out the obvious: that it was the outcome of the efforts
of the Serb people who continued to strongly oppose the bombing, exactly
contrary to th standard line of the mainstream press.
That leaves your belief that the people of Serbia did not want to overthrow
the Milosevic gang, and that the appearance that they did was result of a
pay off from the West. That runs counter to any evidence I know, and since
you present none (nor has anyone else, to my knowledge), I can't comment.
In fact, it's hard to think of other examples
to which such a version of
events would apply. I remain open to evidence; not to unsupported
events would apply. I remain open to evidence; not to unsupported
assertion that runs counter to extensive
evidence.
I don't understand the relevance of the November 2000 presidential
elections. There's plenty to say about them, but on quite different grounds.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
On the Apartheid question, one would have to be a mindreader to extract the meaning you cite below. This meaning is not in the original text, where you are comparing two achievements -- that of ridding Yugoslavia of Milosevic, and that of overthrowing Apartheid in South Africa. The issue does not merit further discussion.
You attribute to me the "belief that the people of Serbia did not want to overthrow the Milosevic gang, and that the appearance that they did was result of a pay off from the West." In fact, I believe that what the people of Serbia themselves did or did not want will never be known because the U.S. has controlled every aspect of the election, including what U.S. citizens heard about it. I've touched on this in an earlier reply.
As for the relevance of our own recent elections. Imagine that a foreign nation twenty times bigger than our country subjected us to 78 days of bombing, destroying bridges, trains, hospitals, schools, TV stations, foreign embassies, chemical factories, power plants, state buildings, residential areas, and marketplaces, killing 2,000 people and injuring many more. Then imagine that the foreign nation invaded and occupied, say, the midwest, setting up a huge military base and separating the midwest off from the rest of the country. Imagine that with all this the foreign nation had long ago imposed sanctions which now immiserated the majority of the people of the country. Imagine that the foreign nation had also earlier stirred up ethnic differences and successfully broken off New England and the West Coast from the country. Now imagine that we were about to have elections and that the foreign nation poured the equivalent of $30 billion into an apparatus set up for its chosen candidate. Could such an election be characterized as being in some gray area -- somewhere between legitimate and a fraud? I hardly think so.
We know that with the comparatively mild shenanigans of the Bush brothers in Florida the U.S. election was a fraud. How is it that in Yugoslavia, where vast enormities were committed by an outside nation -- a nation which has undermined elections in countless other countries before this -- that it was something else?
You say that I have only assertions, that you have evidence. There is no shortage of evidence for the U.S./NATO bombing, invasion, and occupation of Yugoslavia. Nor is there a shortage of evidence for massive U.S.interference in the Yugoslav elections. You seem to be saying that Kostunica and Djindic were brought in by some internal force in Yugoslavia not affected by all the machinery the U.S. brought to bear on the election, or on the country as a whole. If you have evidence of this, please send it on.
Richard Hugus
Dear Mr. Hugus,
Your insistence on misreading the paragraph is rather curious. Not even
the US government or the most extreme Serb-haters in the West accuses
Milosevic of running an Apartheid-style regime. Anyone who made such a
comparison must be suffering from some mental illness, in which case, no
sensible person would bother writing to them. And of course, the statement
you quote did nothing of the sort. But if you insist, it's your privilege.
Your belief that the people of Serbia were 100% powerless in the election
("because the U.S. has controlled every aspect of the election") is not
only utterly false, but a remarkable insult to the Serbs. That the US
controlled everything heard about the election here -- including, say, the
reports of Serb dissidents, left militants, etc. -- well, if you'd like to
believe it, again it's your privilege.
On the US elections, you wrote: "The fraud involved in the Yugoslav
election was 1,000 times worse
that what we just witnessed the election of George Bush Jr. in the United
I don't understand the relevance of the November 2000 presidential
elections. There's plenty to say about them, but on quite different grounds.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
On the Apartheid question, one would have to be a mindreader to extract the meaning you cite below. This meaning is not in the original text, where you are comparing two achievements -- that of ridding Yugoslavia of Milosevic, and that of overthrowing Apartheid in South Africa. The issue does not merit further discussion.
You attribute to me the "belief that the people of Serbia did not want to overthrow the Milosevic gang, and that the appearance that they did was result of a pay off from the West." In fact, I believe that what the people of Serbia themselves did or did not want will never be known because the U.S. has controlled every aspect of the election, including what U.S. citizens heard about it. I've touched on this in an earlier reply.
As for the relevance of our own recent elections. Imagine that a foreign nation twenty times bigger than our country subjected us to 78 days of bombing, destroying bridges, trains, hospitals, schools, TV stations, foreign embassies, chemical factories, power plants, state buildings, residential areas, and marketplaces, killing 2,000 people and injuring many more. Then imagine that the foreign nation invaded and occupied, say, the midwest, setting up a huge military base and separating the midwest off from the rest of the country. Imagine that with all this the foreign nation had long ago imposed sanctions which now immiserated the majority of the people of the country. Imagine that the foreign nation had also earlier stirred up ethnic differences and successfully broken off New England and the West Coast from the country. Now imagine that we were about to have elections and that the foreign nation poured the equivalent of $30 billion into an apparatus set up for its chosen candidate. Could such an election be characterized as being in some gray area -- somewhere between legitimate and a fraud? I hardly think so.
We know that with the comparatively mild shenanigans of the Bush brothers in Florida the U.S. election was a fraud. How is it that in Yugoslavia, where vast enormities were committed by an outside nation -- a nation which has undermined elections in countless other countries before this -- that it was something else?
You say that I have only assertions, that you have evidence. There is no shortage of evidence for the U.S./NATO bombing, invasion, and occupation of Yugoslavia. Nor is there a shortage of evidence for massive U.S.interference in the Yugoslav elections. You seem to be saying that Kostunica and Djindic were brought in by some internal force in Yugoslavia not affected by all the machinery the U.S. brought to bear on the election, or on the country as a whole. If you have evidence of this, please send it on.
Richard Hugus
Dear Mr. Hugus,
Your insistence on misreading the paragraph is rather curious. Not even
the US government or the most extreme Serb-haters in the West accuses
Milosevic of running an Apartheid-style regime. Anyone who made such a
comparison must be suffering from some mental illness, in which case, no
sensible person would bother writing to them. And of course, the statement
you quote did nothing of the sort. But if you insist, it's your privilege.
Your belief that the people of Serbia were 100% powerless in the election
("because the U.S. has controlled every aspect of the election") is not
only utterly false, but a remarkable insult to the Serbs. That the US
controlled everything heard about the election here -- including, say, the
reports of Serb dissidents, left militants, etc. -- well, if you'd like to
believe it, again it's your privilege.
On the US elections, you wrote: "The fraud involved in the Yugoslav
election was 1,000 times worse
that what we just witnessed the election of George Bush Jr. in the United
States." In response, I wrote that I don't see
the relevance of this
comment. Your response confirms that it was utterly irrelevant. You
comment. Your response confirms that it was utterly irrelevant. You
respond by asking me to "Imagine that a foreign
nation twenty times
bigger...." Whatever the validity of this comparison, it plainly has
nothing whatsoever -- repeat, nothing whatsoever -- to do with your
statement that "The fraud involved in the Yugoslav election was 1,000 times
worse that what we just witnessed the election of George Bush Jr. in the
United States." Surely that at least is clear.
This is descending to sheer irrationality. I see no point in pursuing the
discussion.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Again, please send any information you might have showing that a majority of the people of Serbia would have supported the new Kostunica-Djindic-IMF-World Bank regime in Yugoslavia independent of U.S. terror and coercion.
Richard Hugus
I'll be happy to do that in response to the information you provide to me
showing me that the people of Serbia would have supported Milosevic had the
US stayed out of it.
NC
Professor Chomsky,
Clever rebuttal, but unfair. It was you who cited "extensive evidence" showing that the people of Serbia accomplished the ousting of Milosevic and the bringing in of the Kostunica on their own. I am merely asking for the evidence. Plaudits from the mainstream press are all you've provided.
For my part, I have already provided evidence of how -- through the calculated use by the United States of long-term economic sanctions, active support for a secessionist movement, unrelenting propaganda and demonization, a ruthless 78 day bombing campaign, military occupation, and massive election bribery -- the people of Serbia did not do it "on their own."
You are in the position of defending what amounts to an old-fashioned CIA coup which is well on the way to making Yugoslavia a new colony for the IMF and World Bank. You are not in good company. Worse still, by endorsing the result of the crimes I have just mentioned, you sell out both the people of Yugoslavia and the ability of the American Left to act effectively to condemn what the U.S. has done, and is doing, there.
Richard Hugus
Dear Professor Chomsky,
In your last message to me, you wrote:
"Dear Mr. Hugus,
Your insistence on misreading the paragraph is rather curious. Not even the US government or the most extreme Serb-haters in the West accuses Milosevic of running an Apartheid-style regime. Anyone who made such a comparison must be suffering from some mental illness, in which case, no sensible person would bother writing to them. And of course, the statement you quote did nothing of the sort. But if you insist, it's your privilege."
Not that this was my point, but apparently you HAVE accused Milosevic of running an Apartheid-style regime. In an article in Z Magazine (May 2000) you wrote:
"Current indications are that Kosovo under NATO occupation has reverted to what was developing in the early 1980s, after the death of Tito, when nationalist forces undertook to create an "ethnically clean Albanian republic," taking over Serb lands, attacking churches, and engaging in "protracted violence" to attain the goal of an "ethnically pure" Albanian region, with "almost weekly incidents of rape, arson, pillage and industrial sabotage, most seemingly designed to drive Kosovo's remaining indigenous Slavs...out of the province." This "seemingly intractable" problem, another phase in an ugly history of intercommunal violence, led to Milosevic's characteristically brutal response, withdrawing Kosovo's autonomy and the heavy federal subsidies on which it depended, and imposing an "Apartheid" regime. "
Would you care to comment?
Richard Hugus
The phrase "Apartheid" regime is in quotes because it is quoted: from historian Mariana Vickers, as indicated. It refers to Kosovo. Your claim was that I compared Serbia to South Africa's Apartheid regime, which of course would be nonsense; recall that the reference was to the elections, in which Kosovars barely took part. Surely you can see the difference.
bigger...." Whatever the validity of this comparison, it plainly has
nothing whatsoever -- repeat, nothing whatsoever -- to do with your
statement that "The fraud involved in the Yugoslav election was 1,000 times
worse that what we just witnessed the election of George Bush Jr. in the
United States." Surely that at least is clear.
This is descending to sheer irrationality. I see no point in pursuing the
discussion.
Noam Chomsky
Dear Professor Chomsky,
Again, please send any information you might have showing that a majority of the people of Serbia would have supported the new Kostunica-Djindic-IMF-World Bank regime in Yugoslavia independent of U.S. terror and coercion.
Richard Hugus
I'll be happy to do that in response to the information you provide to me
showing me that the people of Serbia would have supported Milosevic had the
US stayed out of it.
NC
Professor Chomsky,
Clever rebuttal, but unfair. It was you who cited "extensive evidence" showing that the people of Serbia accomplished the ousting of Milosevic and the bringing in of the Kostunica on their own. I am merely asking for the evidence. Plaudits from the mainstream press are all you've provided.
For my part, I have already provided evidence of how -- through the calculated use by the United States of long-term economic sanctions, active support for a secessionist movement, unrelenting propaganda and demonization, a ruthless 78 day bombing campaign, military occupation, and massive election bribery -- the people of Serbia did not do it "on their own."
You are in the position of defending what amounts to an old-fashioned CIA coup which is well on the way to making Yugoslavia a new colony for the IMF and World Bank. You are not in good company. Worse still, by endorsing the result of the crimes I have just mentioned, you sell out both the people of Yugoslavia and the ability of the American Left to act effectively to condemn what the U.S. has done, and is doing, there.
Richard Hugus
Dear Professor Chomsky,
In your last message to me, you wrote:
"Dear Mr. Hugus,
Your insistence on misreading the paragraph is rather curious. Not even the US government or the most extreme Serb-haters in the West accuses Milosevic of running an Apartheid-style regime. Anyone who made such a comparison must be suffering from some mental illness, in which case, no sensible person would bother writing to them. And of course, the statement you quote did nothing of the sort. But if you insist, it's your privilege."
Not that this was my point, but apparently you HAVE accused Milosevic of running an Apartheid-style regime. In an article in Z Magazine (May 2000) you wrote:
"Current indications are that Kosovo under NATO occupation has reverted to what was developing in the early 1980s, after the death of Tito, when nationalist forces undertook to create an "ethnically clean Albanian republic," taking over Serb lands, attacking churches, and engaging in "protracted violence" to attain the goal of an "ethnically pure" Albanian region, with "almost weekly incidents of rape, arson, pillage and industrial sabotage, most seemingly designed to drive Kosovo's remaining indigenous Slavs...out of the province." This "seemingly intractable" problem, another phase in an ugly history of intercommunal violence, led to Milosevic's characteristically brutal response, withdrawing Kosovo's autonomy and the heavy federal subsidies on which it depended, and imposing an "Apartheid" regime. "
Would you care to comment?
Richard Hugus
The phrase "Apartheid" regime is in quotes because it is quoted: from historian Mariana Vickers, as indicated. It refers to Kosovo. Your claim was that I compared Serbia to South Africa's Apartheid regime, which of course would be nonsense; recall that the reference was to the elections, in which Kosovars barely took part. Surely you can see the difference.
If you have something serious to say, I'll be glad to listen. But I think we are simply wasting each other's time, and I imagine we each have more important things to do.
Noam Chomsky
Professor Chomsky,
First of all, it isn't clear who you're quoting in the Z article. Mariana Vickers isn't mentioned anywhere in the text (perhaps she is mentioned in a footnote in your Afterword to the French translation of The New Military Humanism from which the Z article is taken -- I don't know). In any case, there is no indication that you are using quotation marks around "Apartheid" either ironically or to distance yourself from your source -- you seem to be in agreement with the term.
Taking this together with what you just wrote in your last message, would it be correct to say that you believe Kosovo, not Serbia, to be the locus of Apartheid in Yugoslavia?
Regarding the Yugoslavia elections, Kosovo was under full NATO occupation when these elections were held. Thus, the government whom the people of Kosovo were supposed to be voting for, or against, had already been replaced. NATO had accomplished overtly the undermining of Yugoslav government in Kosovo -- a process which in Serbia was still more or less in the covert stage with the CIA-National Endowment for Democracy-supported DOS. An election under such conditions would hardly be something to praise, yet you describe the elections as a great achievement. Why?
Richard Hugus
The word "extensive" appears once in the article to which you are referring: "On the elections themselves, there is plenty of valid criticism: there was extensive interference by the West..."
The only "evidence" you have presented is in support of what I wrote. If you'd like to support your extremely insulting charges against the people of Serbia (and Nicaragua), perhaps you might also add an explanation of why they capitulated so totally to the US in the parliamentary elections.
I'm afraid I don't have any more time for this, and will not be able to respond any further.
NC
Professor Chomsky,
Regarding "extensive evidence", these were words you used in a message to me in the following paragraph:
"That leaves your belief that the people of Serbia did not want to overthrow
the Milosevic gang, and that the appearance that they did was result of a
pay off from the West. That runs counter to any evidence I know, and since
you present none (nor has anyone else, to my knowledge), I can't comment.
In fact, it's hard to think of other examples to which such a version of
events would apply. I remain open to evidence; not to unsupported
assertion that runs counter to extensive evidence."
To the contrary, I wonder if the people of Serbia (and Nicaragua) wouldn't find "extremely insulting" the idea that it took U.S. military intervention and terror to show them the light about who their proper political leadership should be.
Richard Hugus
Dear Mr. Hugus,
I have taken the trouble to respond carefully to every charge and claim you made about what I had written. In each case what you wrote was based on gross misquotation, misreading, or falsification of fact, as I pointed out to you in careful detail. Surely you can understand that it is not my responsiblity to document for you statements I make in letters -- which, in fact, you can easily verify if you like. For example, you might begin by paying attention to the discussion and debate proceeding within left dissident circles in Serbia, or you might ask yourself whether the results of the parliamentary elections are also the result of the people of Serbia blindly following their masters in Washington, as you claim. It is also not my responsibility to explain to you why your astonishing conclusions are a profound insult to the people of Nicaragua and Serbia. I've done far more than courtesy requires. I have already tried to explain, politely, that unless you can find something sensible to say I am not going to continue this correspendence. I receive hundreds of letters a day from people who really are serious, and though you may have endless time to waste, I don't.
NC
Professor Chomsky,
Thanks for telling me how polite you've been. You're joking, of course. I can't count one of your messages that hasn't had some insult or other. I've done my best to ignore them.
Let's put aside the question of whether the people of Yugoslavia freely chose the majority DOS government they now have. Why do you think an IMF/World Bank-friendly government is a positive development for Yugoslavia?
Richard Hugus
I'll be happy to answer as soon as you respond to an equally rational question: tell me why YOU think that an IMF-WB-friendly government is a positive development not only for Yugoslavia but for the entire world, and when you are going to apply for a job with them, since you so plainly think so.
Apologies. It's not an equally rational question; rather, much more rational. After all, I don't know for certain that you regard the presupposition about your beliefs as ludicrous, but you do know for certain that your presupposition about my beliefs is ludicrous -- at least if you have read the single passage from my article that you chose to misrepresent in chapter one of your inquisition.
I'm afraid I cannot continue this. I'm sure you can find other people to harass inventions about what you'd like to believe, for some reason, that they have written.
NC
Professor Chomsky,
Yes, you've clearly expressed your opposition to the IMF and World Bank. You have also supported elections in Yugoslavia which have brought the Democratic Opposition of Serbia to power.The DOS is compliant with the IMF and World Bank. This is a contradiction.
Richard Hugus
Or to put it more accurately, the challenge you posed made no sense at all, and you want to try something new, continuing the pattern. Your new question is why I supported an electoral outcome that is compliant with the IFIs. That question has the same answer as the earlier one: I didn't. I preferred an outcome that opposed such compliance, as the article you have been trying to find something wrong with made completely explicit. But I didn't vote in Yugoslavia.
The issue is a completely different one: were the people who voted against Milosevic in the presidential and (more dramatically) parliamentary elections expressing their own wishes, or were they slavishly following Washington's orders, as you believe (same in Nicaragua)? Given your beliefs about the matter, you are wasting not only my time but yours: you should be agitating on the streets of Belgrade in favor of Milosevic, or if you don't want to do that, at least organizing pro-Milosevic support groups and actions, and doing what you can to make sure that your pro-Milosevic message is heard among the great majority of the population who support him, so they will know that they are not alone, and need not grovel before Uncle Sam.
Alternatively, if your commitment is solely to harassment, find some other target.
NC
