I'd like to make a few points about the recent debate on 'Serb fascism."

1. Neil Smith is absolutely right to critique the contextless reflex of
many who declare 'Stop the Bombing' without appreciating the historical
and geographical context of the wars of the dissolution of Yugoslavia.
At the core of those wars have been two dynamics: (i) the efforts of
former Yugoslav communists to stay in power by riding the tiger of
ethnic nationalism and (ii) the destruction of an anti-democratic 'civic
Yugoslav nationalism' by various supposedly 'democratic' ethnic
nationalisms. The result has been, amongst other things, the triumph of
a right-wing authoritarian ethnic nationalism in Croatia and a fusion of
communism, fascistic nationalism and gangster capitalism in Serbia. The
West made enormous mistakes in responding to the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Dimitris Ballas suggest "It can be argued that the common denominator in
the Yugoslav tragedy (from 1991 to the Kosovo) crisis was NATO and the
'Western powers'." This can, with unsustainable assumptions, be argued.
However, it is simply a bad argument. In the current context, of course,
this reasoning projects the blame for the violent breakup of Yugoslavia
outwards and away from the crucial dynamic: the manipulation of Serb and
Croat nationalism to serve elitist, anti-democratic and authoritiarian
ends. The argument is a local version of a more general tendency, namely
Serb nationalist resistance, resistance in the same way evoked by Jane
Jacobs in her essay 'Resisting Reconciliation' in GEOGRAPHIES OF
RESISTANCE, namely "a form of defense against the anxiety which might be
produced by recognizing some repressed 'truth' or confronting the
repressed emotional traces of a past trauma" (p. 208 for those
interested). A different version of this is the target image Serb
'resisters' use to mark their (heroic) status as victims. Norman Cigar
in his book GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA simply terms this "the denial syndrome."
It is one of the key characteristics of contemporary Serbian nationalist
discourse. Another, of course, is to simply evoke 'the Serb people'
and/or 'the Serb nation' as if this was a self-evident category; this
move effectively renders the multi-cultural nature of YUGOSLAVIA
invisible and silences the 'otherness' and 'hybridity' nationalists wish
to deny.

2. I disagree with those who claim that NATO's actions are
imperialistic. While NATO strategy is flawed by Clinton's unwillingness
to accept casualties, NATO is, contra Neil Smith's original claim,
attacking the genocidal machinery in Kosovo; the number of 'sorties'
against tanks and troops in Kosovo is huge. The motivation for NATO's
actions are not, of course, humanitarian. This is a war about:
(i) the future of NATO as THE organization of security in Europe
(ii) the future of American leadership in Europe
(iii) Clinton and redeeming his legacy ("this is the presidency" he
reportedly declared at the outset of bombing; the derided president
becomes Mr Resolute International StatesMAN).
(iv) the ability of the EU and NATO to set the terms for the future
development of the continent of Europe.
Its a war about geopolitics, first, and geoeconomics, 'political
economy' or 'the new world order' a distant second.

3. The argument that this is an 'imperialist war' seems to assume that
the American leadership position in
NATO is an example of imperialism. America, however, helped defeat
fascism in Europe during World War II and, while its role has not been
positive there in many ways, its dominance within NATO has been accepted
by the major European powers. Its geopolitical empire, if one must use
this term, was an 'empire of invitation.' To charge that NATO's actions
are 'imperialism' is to participate in a discourse which assumes 'state
sovereignty' to be unquestioned, in practical effect giving a free hand
to the serial killing being engaged in by the Yugoslav state dominated
by Serb fascistic nationalism. Charges of 'imperialism' ignore the
consensual nature of NATO decision-making. It also waters down the
concept so that anything supposedly "American" -- hamburgers and Coke --
can be cited as instances of 'imperialism" (and this, of course, assumed
a genuine authority that can decide between 'the authentic' and the
'imperialistic').

4. There are strong reasons why leftists should fear NATOs monopoly over
the future of European security, principally because:
(i) the future of European security should not be dependent upon the
vaguaries of American political life;
(ii) the major European powers need to get their act together to develop
a truly European security system (there is evidence this is happening)
which will check a longstanding European fascist tendency.
(iii) NATO has nukes at the core of its arsenal and a 'first use'
policy; NATO could end up killing us all if these policies are not
changed; this is a matter for political struggle and a 'de-nuke NATO'
campaign is under way.

5. However, there are strong reasons why leftists should support NATO in
the Balkans, principally because it is fighting a fusion of fascism,
authoritarian communism and gangster capitalism.The Milosevic regime has
destroyed the lives of millions in the former Yugoslavia. It has
organized and sponsored murder on a large scale for 8 years in Croatia,
Bosnia and Kosovo (and yes, the Croats did it too in the Krajina). It
has been a distaster for the Serbs as well as for Bosnians, Albanians
and the many others that wanted to recognize their de facto hybridity.
Fighting ground troops should have been introduced year ago into Bosnia;
they should have een sent in at the outset of this war; they should be
introduced at once to liberate all of Yugoslavia from fascism.

6. It may interest those who charge 'American hegemony' to know that
some of those historically associated with right-wing American
unilateralism -- military muscle boys from Patrick Buchanan to Kissinger
to Tom Clancy -- were/are opposed to US involvement in the war because
there were "no vital US interests involved." Scenes of ethnic cleansing
don't move these hard men; only oil, markets and corporations do:
"Kuwait was strategic; Kosovo ain't" is their line. This right wing
argument is very powerful in the US because Kosovo is seen as a 'left
wing' war; i.e. for once the US is actually on the side of justice.

The 'accident' that NATO is actually on the right side in its fight
against fascism can be an opportunity for the left to push for further
reforms within the organization (principally the German Green arguments
about de-nuking it). NATO should not be defeated; it should be reformed
and made into an effective security organization for a democratic and
unified Europe.

For the victory of NATO and the ongoing struggle to create a Europe free
from fascism.

Gerard Toal (Gearoid O Tuathail),
Department of Geography, Virginia Tech.
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web Page: www.majbill.vt.edu/Geog/faculty/toal/gt.html
Until May 31 1999: 127 Major Williams Hall. Phone: (703) 231 5806. Fax:
(540) 231 2089.
June-July 1999: 622 University Park, Rochester, NY 14620. Phone (540)
951 2169.
August-October 1999: Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI),
Fredericiagade 18, DK-1310
Copenhagen K, Denmark. Phone: +45 3345 5050. Fax: +45 3345 5060.
November-December 1999: 622 University Park, Rochester, NY 14620. Phone
(540) 951 2169.
January 2000: Washington-Alexandria Center, Virginia Tech, 1001 Prince
St., Alexandria VA 22314.
Phone: (703) 548 0099. Fax (703) 548 0532.



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