Marc Mulholland says, apparently in response to the letter by Said et al, that:

>The crisis in Yougoslavia is not an internal matter for
>that state. The Kosovan Albanians are a repressed national
>minority attempting to assert their right to
>self-determination. For the sake of peace one might support
>a transitional settlement (the fredom to achive freedom as
>Michael Collins put it). But the argument that it is an
>internal question for the Milosivic regime, appealing to
>China and Russia no doubt, is the worst form of legalistic
>pedantry and collusion with reaction.

I struggled in vain to find the argument in the Said letter, although there
may be be people who hold this position. What kind of debate can we have
when one party attributes to the other different views to the ones they
have expressed? The letter did say "No durable solution to a major
political conflict internal to a state can be imposed from the outside, by
force", which is a problematic formulation because there is a genuine
demand for self-determination. It is probably a fudge, but it is not what
Marc says. Nor, because socialists should support the right of oppressed
nations to self-determination, does it follow that we should argue that
secession to form a separate state should follow in every case - although I
do not believe that the Kosovars will or should contemplate going back into
Milosevic's Yugoslavia at the end of this war. But why should we think that
NATO should intervene to support the right to  self-determination? The wolf
puts on sheep's clothing, perhaps!

>In days of yore socialists, while having no truck with
>nationalist illusions, supported the right of democratic
>national self-determination. As internationalists we should
>support anything that furthers such democratic rights as
>long as there are no over-riding countervailing imperatives
>(for example, opposing Hitlerite expansionism clearly took
>precedence over the national aspirations of Sudeten
>Germans).

>While NATO has its own selfish motivations (of course)
>these do not strike me as over-riding to the extent that we
>should oppose NATO military action at the price of leaving
>the Kosovars to their fate. This is what NATO abstention
>would mean.

Clearly it is the view of much of the opposition to the war that there are
such countervailing imperatives, and I think that goes for the signatories
of the letter - this is where the argument should start, not stop. Further,
if you look at the Thatcher/Reagan/Clinton/Blair policy towards the Kurds,
it is perfectly arguable that you can get a high-powered NATO attack
combined with the oppressed national minority it is supposed to defend
being left to their fate. When much of the infrastructure of Kosova and
Yugoslavia has been destroyed (road bridges, water and power plants,
factories, government buildings, TV stations etc), quite possibly dusted
with depleted uranium and sprinkled with unexploded anti-personnel weapons,
chemical fall-out etc, that's what I expect to happen. Some kind of limited
'protectorate' (read refugee camp) of Kosova may be established, but the
expenditure to make it viable for people to live their lives is unlikely to
be forthcoming.

>There is also a danger of moral relativism here. The
>milosovic regime is carrying out ethnic cleansing. The
>moral responsibility for this cannot be shifted onto NATO.
>One may as well blame the KLA for provoking repression. One
>should not confuse the violence of the oppressor for the
>violence of those who resist.

Those of us in this discussion probably agree with this last sentence.
However NATO (or rather the most powerful capitalist state and its allies)
have entered the frame and have to be accounted for. I posted on a previous
occasion that "Although NATO claims to be motivated by the plight of the
people of Kosova, it rejects the demand of the people of Kosova for
independence. In fact, it shares Milosevic's war aim - the continuation of
Serbian rule over Kosova". I'd still like to know how it can have such a
position and be greeted as the saviour of the Kosovar right to
self-determination
(especially when it has such a lousy record).


Paul Hubert




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%