[Translated by Joanna Misnik]
Statement by French intellectuals in Le Monde, 31 March 1999
Stop the bombings, self-determination
We do not accept the following false dilemmas:
Either support the NATO intervention or support the reactionary policies
of the Serb authorities in Kosovo? The NATO bombing raids, which made
necessary the withdrawal of OSCE personnel from Kosovo, created
morefavourable conditions for a ground offensive by Serb paramilitary
forces,rather than preventing it; they encourage the worst forms of ultra-
nationalist
Serb desire for revenge against the Kosovar population; they consolidate
the dictatorial power of Slobodan Milosevic which has muzzled the independent
media and succeeded in uniting round it a national consensus which must,
onthe contrary, be broken if a path to peaceful and political negotiations
onKosovo is to be opened up.
Either accept as the sole possible basis for negotiation the "peace plan"
drawn up by the governments of the United States and of the European Union
or bomb Serbia? No long-term solution to a major internal political conflict
can be imposed from outside by force. It is not true that "every attempt
wasmade" to find a solution and an acceptable framework for negotiations.
TheKosovar negotiators were forced to sign a plan which they had
initiallyrejected after they were given reason to believe that NATO would
becomeinvolved on the ground in defence of their cause. This is a lie which
fosters a total illusion: not one of the governments which have supported
the NATO airstrikes are willing to wage war against the Serb regime to
impose
independencefor Kosovo. The strikes will perhaps weaken part of the Serbian
military machine, but they will not weaken the mortars which are being used
to destroy Albanianhouses, nor the para-military forces which are
executing UCK (Kosovo LiberationArmy) fighters.
NATO is not the only, nor above all the best, foundation on which to base
an agreement. It would have been possible to find the conditions for
amultinational police force (including Serbs and Albanians) within
theframework of the OSCE which would oversee the application of a
transitionalagreement. It would above all have been possible to enlarge the
framework of the negotiations by including the Balkan states destabilised by
thisconflict: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania... One could at the same
timehave defended the Kosovars' right to self-government of the province
andprotected the Serb minority in Kosovo; one could have sought to respond to
the aspirations and fears of the different peoples concerned through links
of cooperation and agreements between neighbouring states, with Serbia,Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania... No such attempt was made.
We do not accept the arguments with which it has been sought to legitimatethe
NATO intervention:
It is not true that the NATO air strikes will prevent the spreadingof
the conflict to the region, to Macedonia or Bosnia-Herzegovina: they will
on the contrary encourage this. They will further destabilise
Bosnia-Herzegovina
and no doubt endanger the multinational forces responsible for enforcing
thefragile Dayton Agreement. They have already fanned the flames of conflict
inMacedonia.
It is not true that NATO is protecting the Kosovar population or their
rights.
It is not true that the bombing of Serbia is opening the way to
ademocratic government there.
The governments of the European Union and of the United States perhaps hoped
that this demonstration of force would force Slobodan Milosevic to sign their
plan. Does this reveal on their part naivete or hypocrisy? Whatever the
case,this policy is leading not only to a political impasse, but also
alegitimatisation of the role of NATO outside any framework of
internationalcontrol.
For this reason, we demand:
an immediate end to these bombings;
the organisation of a Balkans conference in which representatives of
the states and all the national communities in these states would participate;
the defence of the principle of the right of peoples to
self-determination, on the sole condition that this right is not obtained
to the detriment of
another people and through the ethnic cleansing of territory;
a debate in parliament on the future participation of France in NATO.
Pierre Bourdieu
Pauline Boutron
Suzanne de Brunhoff
Nolle Burgi-Golub
Jean-Christophe Chaumeron
Thomas Coutrot
Daniel Bensaid
Daniel Durant
Robin Foot
Ana-Maria Galano
Philip Golub
Michel Husson
Paul Jacquin
Marcel-Francis Kahn
Bernard Langlois
Ariane Lantz
Pierre Lantz
Florence Lefresne
Catherine Levy
Jean-Philippe Milesy
Patrick Mony
Aline Pailler
Catherine Samary
Rolande Trempe
Pierre Vidal-Naquet
_________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan Michael Feldman
Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Linkoping University
Teknikringen 4
S-581 83 Linkoping, Sweden
PHONE: 46 13 28 5687
FAX: 46 13 122299
E-MAIL: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|