At 18:48 11/04/99 -0400, Charles wrote:
>Please forward the following statement to your lists. Thanks much. Pat Fry
>
>
>Oppose U.S. and NATO Aggression in Yugoslavia
>A statement of the
>Committees of Correspondence
>April 9, 1999
I respect Charles too much to want to have a dogfight with him about this
issue. More importantly I respect the issue too much to lose such an
opportunity for a serious exchange.
I have concentrated on arguing against what I see as appeasement of fascism
on the lists with larger volume.
The forwarding of this statement by the COC's, gives an opportunity for a
more considered comment which I would like to take up.
I want to note one point first in the growing maturity of the left on the
internet, and of marxism-space. It is clear that alongside the explosion of
e-mail, a number of serious people from different political orientations
have gone off, sat down, and worked hard to try to resolve a principled and
practical political line. These lines are now being submitted and fed back
into the e-mail discussion.
I think the merits of this COC statement are that as a statement by US
citizens it delivers the main blow against the aggression of their own
ruling class, but it recognises at least there are subordinate
contradictions, for which US imperialism is not necessarily primarily
responsible. It is therefore qualitatively superior to a statement of pure
leftist idealism, which addresses the real world only to try to explain it
away in simple formula. It recognises a number of contradictions.
(Unless our polemics remain totally one-sided they boil down to what is the
principal contradiction, what is the principal aspect of that
contradiction, and what are the other contradictions. Depending on peoples
subjective and objective situation these analyses come out with different
answers.)
One of the main bases on which the COC statement criticises the US
agression against Serbia is that this weakens democratic and progressive
forces in the Yugoslavian region as a whole.
It gives attention to the democratic opposition to Milosevic. It criticises
the murder of ethnic Albanians by the Serbian government.
On the United Nations, it not only criticises the violation of the Charter,
but focusses attention on the long standing policy of the US to undermine
the organisation by not paying its dues.
Negatively, I do not agree with a "deadly war against the Serbian people"
which is imprecise in focussing criticism on the actions and policy of the
US government. NATO is plainly not targetting the Serbian people as such
whereas the Serbian fascists are targetting the Albanian people. When NATO
has won leadership of public opinion in the west, the left will not win
leadership back with such formulas.
Criticism of hypocrisy is true but that implies that bourgeois governments
might be expected to tell the truth rather than to respond to the resultant
of forces. I would have thought a marxist approach would expect all
governments to have an element of hypocrisy in the public presentation of
their positions.
I suggest the existence of the veto by permanent members of the Security
Council is neither a realistic point to defend nor symbolic of any
fundamental principle. It is possible consistently to criticise the
hegemonic world power everytime it does not carry out the letter of the UN
charter, and that does some good. But it does not help unite with a large
section of opinion in the USA.
The criticism of overwhelming military right is a moral one. The Serb
fascists ensured they had overwhelming military might in Kosovo. Everyone
knows that in a state structure the state has overwhelming physical might.
This line is an idealist pacifist line.
The Serb Easter cease fire was not a strong moral move, but revealed
further features of fascist ruthlessness.
It is asking a lot of it in the short term but the statement lacks a
perspective on the economic significance of these wars. In principle an
organisation like the COC ought to have access to a robust analysis of the
economic contradictions in the world today and how this war fits into them.
On immediate demands:
1. Throwing its weight against US military might. *I would like to see US
citizens continue to do this.*
The contradictions in Kosovo would not have come to an acute head in the
way they did without the European governments as well as the US, relying on
US military dominance. It would have been better if the countries of
western Europe alone, with their limited military might, had considered
what they could do to limit the damage in the Balkans, and tried to promote
non-antagonistic resolution of them. That should not have excluded armed
intervention but it should have tried to limit that component as part of a
wider range of responses.
I see the argument for clipping the wings of massive US air-power unless
approved by the United Nations. But I see no argument for failing to arm
the KLA, who have a just war against national oppression. In the absence of
circumstances which defend the right to self-determination of the Albanian
people of Kosovo, it is our duty to try to find ways for them to defend
themselves by force of arms if they think that is in their best interests.
I think offensive ground troops in Kosovo are less widely destructive of
Serbian conditions of life. *It would be better if none of them are US*.
*I would like to see a weakening of the Atlantic alliance as a result of
this war, not a strengthening, which I fear will be the outcome.*
Enhanced role for the UN is positive, but only if the UN does not allow
itself to be paralysed by appeasement of fascism by even a minority of
members.
Funding all refugees, but not out of guilt.
A policy of appeasement of fascism implies that western state power should
be involved wherever necessary in the Balkans but without the option ever
of using the armed forces of the state. It should be there at every major
crossing point as one community after another is driven out by reactionary
nationalism, killed or raped. Such a state policy of intervention implies
funding for humantarian relief at all these areas, including food,
clothing, planes to fly them to distant homes, bereavement counselling on a
massive scale and morning after pills for rape victims. However much I
recognise the anti-imperialist sentiments of protagonists on this issue,
that is the logic of how bourgeois pacifism thinks that state power should
be used. It is appeasement.
The statement that the US has been the chief perpetrator of humanitarian
crises is a propagandist statement that will be endorsed by the converted.
It is not a relevant agitational policy which progressive people in the USA
will support and lean from. It is better to fight US imperialism on a case
by case basis, recognising that some cases are stronger than others.
Recognising also that like any state power it must to some extent appeal to
a higher interest to win credibility.
The COC statement declares support for democratic forces in Yugoslavia
which favour full public debate, but gives no indication that they are
unlikely to be given their freedom. In the concrete circumstances this is
an idealist gesture. It would be better to call concretely for lifting of
all political censorship in Yugoslavia, and the admission of journalists to
Kosovo.
After 7 immediate demands on US imperialism, the COC statement recognises
what it sees as the negative side of the Yugoslav regime. but it imagines
the fascist contradictions can be resolved by full public debate without
confronting fascist armed might with fascist armed might.
The final two paragraphs of the statement make calls on the Yugoslav
government for a radical policy of peaceful resolution of the conflict.
While this has no likelihood of success it has the merit that in any
demonstration in which this statement is given out, it is a signal that the
anti-war movement in the USA cannot progress without the Serbs paying more
attention to public opinion.
Politically the statement bears evidence of the strong influence of
pacifist tendencies on the marxist contribution to the peace movement. The
statement does not distinguish itself theoretically from bourgeois pacifism.
The broad character of this statement is one of policy and propaganda. It
looks useful for members of the COC to play a role in more local
discussions about anti-war activity. But any effective campaign to weaken
the USA's military domination of the world needs to be able to translate
into agitational material.
My view at present is that the right slogan for this is "For a just peace
in the Balkans". But that would raise many problems for the present COC
position.
It is implicit in these comments that internationalism requires a
recognition that progressive people in different parts of the world will
inevitably analyse the situation and the tasks that fall on them
differently. Only by recognising this is it possible without a centralising
committee of the Comintern, imposing one rigid top-down policy, to
strengthen contributions that from different positions in the world
contribute to the ultimate goal of working people uniting.
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
