-Caveat Lector-
________________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________
Noam Chomsky Replies re Kosovo From the ZNet Forum System
http://www.znet.org
Chomsky was asked first about support among progressives for the
position that "military intervention is needed to stop Milosevic from
committing genocide, regardless of whether NATO's motivations are pure,"
with comparisons about "WWII being necessary to stop Hitler, even if the
U.S. did not have truly humanitarian objectives." As well as, "Is the
Yugoslavian government genocidal" and "Will the NATO intervention have
the effect of stopping Milosevic and/or saving the people of Kosovo from
extermination?"
I don't want to say anything about the people you are referring to,
because I don't know, but it seems to me reasonably clear that if we
think the matter through, the arguments you report are untenable, so
untenable as to raise some rather serious questions.
First, let's consider Milosovec's "genocide" in the period preceding the
NATO bombings. According to NATO, 2000 people had been killed, mostly by
Serb military, which by summer 1998 began to react (with retaliation
against civilians) to guerrilla (KLA) attacks on police stations and
civilians, based from and funded from abroad. And several hundred
thousands of refugees were generated. (We might ask, incidentally, how
the US would respond to attacks on police stations and civilians in New
York by armed guerrillas supported from and based in Libya). That's a
humanitarian crisis, but one of a scale that is matched or exceeded
substantially all over the world right now, quite commonly with decisive
support from Clinton. The numbers happen to be almost exactly what the
State Department has just reported for Colombia in the same year, with
roughly the same distribution of atrocities (and a far greater refugee
population, since the 300,000 resulting from last year's atrocities are
added to over a million from before). And it's a fraction of the
atrocities that Clinton dedicated substantial efforts to escalating in
Turkey in the same years, in the ethnic cleansing of Kurds. And on, and
on. So if Milosovic is "genocidal," so are a lot of others -- pretty
close to home. That doesn't say he's a nice guy: he's a monstrous thug.
But the term "genocidal" is being waved as a propaganda device to
mobilize the public for Clinton's wars.
Second, the US ("NATO") intervention, as predicted, radically escalated
the atrocities, maybe even approaching the level of Turkey, or of
Palestine in 1948, to take another example. I wouldn't use the term
"genocide" for such operations -- that's a kind of ultra-right
"revisionism," an insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust,
in my opinion. But it's very bad, and it suffices to undermine the claim
that "military intervention is needed to stop Milosevic from committing
genocide," on elementary logical grounds.
About "WWII being necessary to stop Hitler," that's not what happened at
all. The US/UK were rather sympathetic to Hitler (and absolutely adored
Mussolini). That went on to the late '30s, with varying defections in
the latter stages (much the same was true of Japanese fascism). When
Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France went to war -- called "a phony
war," because they didn't do much. When Hitler attacked them, it became
a real war. When Germany declared war on the US, after Japan had
attacked mainly US military facilities in US colonies that had been
conquered (in one case, with extraordinary violence) half a century
before, the US went to war. No one went to war "to stop Hitler."
There's always more to say: history is too complex to summarize in a few
lines. But the basic assumptions you describe are so far off the mark
that discussion is hardly even possible.
Chomsky was also asked: "To what extent could US resort to military
force in the Balkans be related to Caspian Sea oil and concerns over
declining reserves, uncertainty about Russia and its former empire, the
threat to Western interests of increasing conflict in the Balkans, the
desire to increase the Pentagon budget, or maybe other factors, since
the professed humanitarian concerns seem `dubious.'"
On the last, "dubious" is too kind. If a Mafia don who runs the local
branch of Murder Inc. shows some kindness to children, the humanitarian
concerns don't rise to the level of "dubious" -- and that's even more so
if he shows his humanitarian concerns by kicking the kid in the face. We
can put that aside, as sheer hypocrisy.
More plausible, in my view, is just what Clinton, Blair, etc., have been
saying from the start. It's necessary to ensure the "credibility of
NATO." But that phrase has to be translated from Newspeak.
The US is not concerned with the "credibility" of Italy or Holland:
rather, with the US (and its British attack dog). And what does
"credibility" mean?
Here we can return to the Mafia don. If someone doesn't pay protection
money, the don has to establish "credibility," to make sure others don't
get funny ideas about disobeying orders. So what Clinton, et al., are
saying is that it's necessary to ensure that everyone has proper fear of
the global enforcer. I think it is also useful to bear in mind the
Clinton strategic document called "Essentials of Post-Cold War
Deterrence" that's quoted in an article of mine in Z a year ago on
"Rogue States," the same one Steve Shalom reviewed in more detail in a
recent post. It advocates that the US portray itself as "irrational and
vindictive if its vital interests are attacked," "part of the national
persona we project to all adversaries": "It hurts to portray ourselves
as too fully rational and cool-headed," and surely not subordinate to
treaty obligations or conditions of world order. "The fact that some
elements" of the US government "may appear to be potentially `out of
control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts
within the minds of an adversary's decision makers."
That makes sense for a rogue superpower, with a near monopoly on means
of violence. The "humanitarian cover" has been used by violent states
throughout history: we'd probably find it was true of Genghis Khan, if
we had records. It was surely true of the Crusaders who left a hideous
trail of death and destruction. In fact, about the only clear exceptions
I know are in the Biblical tales, which call for outright genocide --
the Carthaginian solution -- with no credible motive.
In the background is the dedicated US assault against any institution of
international order: the UN, the World Court, even the WTO when it gets
out of hand. That's been going on for almost 40 years, for reasons that
are explained very clearly and would be taught in every school in the
country and headlined in every newspaper and journal, under conditions
of authentic freedom: they don't follow our orders, so they can get
lost. That's why the US, in this case, compelled its more reluctant NATO
allies to reject even "authorization" from the UN.
A very important observation leaked through the NY Times on April 8, in
one of the last paragraphs of a story on an inside page by Steven
Erlanger, their Belgrade correspondent, who has a record of reliability.
Possibly the most important bit of information about what has been
happening. He writes that "just before the bombing, when [the Serbian
Parliament] rejected NATO troops in Kosovo, it also supported the idea
of a United Nations force to monitor a political settlement there." If
Erlanger's report is true, then it provides very dramatic evidence of US
intentions: like the bombing of Iraq in December, it is another brazen
attack against the institutions of world order, since the Serbian
Parliament would be right, and Washington wrong, on the alternatives of
a UN vs. a NATO force. If the report is true, then the last shreds of
legitimacy for the US/NATO operation disappear. I hadn't seen this
reported before; maybe others have. It surely merited a front-page
headline, the day before the bombings began, not a hidden phrase two
weeks later -- though that's better than nothing.
I'd be intrigued to know if others have come across similar reports.
The other factors you mention could be real, but I think they are
secondary. The US (NATO) operation is likely to exacerbate most of the
problems. And expanding the Pentagon budget is not a value in itself.
The kind of expansion that will follow this episode is largely a waste,
from the point of view of the Pentagon and the large sectors of the
"private" economy that rely on it for R&D.
********
The A-Infos News Service
********
COMMANDS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
REPLIES: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HELP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
