On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:02:05 -0800, Bart (via Keri) droned:
>>"Free of emotion, there are two choices for Serbs who do not want to be
>>bombing victims, move out of Serbia, or stand up against the government"
>
>You may not like to hear the truth, Mr. Caddel...
A couple of years ago the Milosevic regime was on the ropes, with the
pro-democracy groups "standing up against the government" in open protest
every day, and gathering strength. Those in the west who now profess
themselves so keen on Serbians "standing up" etc were notably silent:
there was little media coverage, and less real support for this process (a
fraction of the cost of a stealth bomber wdve done the job nicely...).
Now, NATO bombing has effectively shored up M's popularity far more than
he could ever have managed himself, and the opposition groups in Belgrade
are dispersed, or gagged, or worse. The Serbian "cleansing" of Kosovo
(which many of the Belgrade opposition forsaw and spoke out against) is
accelerated. Nice work, NATO!
This is what worries me about the perverted there-is-no-alternative
language-bases of those who seek to justify invasive action (Serbs into
Kosovo; NATO into Balkans; Bart into Britpo:-)...): they have to be so
selective in the truths they present. I note today that John Simpson, the
last BBC reporter in Belgrade, has been criticised by the Blair government
for "negative reporting" - that is, for reporting that NATO bombing has
increased Milosevic's popularity. Selective truth rules OK once more. I've
been mildly suggesting that members of this list at least try to keep the
full picture in view before we drown in the polemic. "History teaches, but
it has no pupils" (Gramsci, quoted by John Seed).
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|