I agree with Neil Smith's observation that simply opposing
bombing is strategically weak, but I have problems with his analysis of
current situation in Balkan. If criticizing NATO/US strategy is easy and
simplistic attitude toward the current situation in Balkan, so is the
demonizing of Milosovic as Hitler or fascist. Many people oppose the
NATO bombing from their conviction that NATO's intervention is far from
humanitarian reason; it is rather for the interest of big power hegemony.

Neil Smith wrote:
> 	Milosevic has moved from being a pathological CP aparatchnik prior
> to 1989 to a proto fascist in the 1990s.  The evidence is clear. The
> present ethnic cleansing of Kosovo is an attempt to clear muslims out of
> Serbia  a 500 year old dream  and build a Greater Serbia.  This was the
> nationalist dream that was frustrated by the creation of a multinational
> Yugoslavia between 1919 and 1924 and its solidification under Tito.  There
> is absolutely no doubt that if Milosevic is not defeated now, he will
> continue the ethnic cleansing, begun in Croatia in 1991 and continued in
> Bosnia- Herzogovina, by invading Montenegro.  Calls for negotiations are
> just naive in the face of this fascism.  Milosevic must be stopped.

	I appreciate your acknowledging historical context behind the
emergence of Serbian "reactional nationalism". But you fail to address the
political-economy mediated by global capitalism since the 1980s, which
should be important for understanding this particular circumstance.
After the death of Tito, Croatian and Albanian separatists lobbied to the
west, notably Germany and the US, where they got outcomes
 (e.g. Bundesnachrichtendienst's (the West German's CIA) sympathetic
following of "Greater Croatia" propaganda; GOP's endorsement of the
Croatian Day of Independence in the 1980s, thanks to the National
Republican Heritage Groups Council's activities). These supports could
in part be understood in the cultural-historical context. But they should
also be seen in terms of economic interests. To secure oil and gas
resources, the US has had an interest to create "a new European-Middle
Eastern block of nations," an informal grouping of Moslem countries
from the Persian Gulf into the Balkans.This should explain why the US
and its NATO friends have made effort to create their allies in the vital
geopolitical location.
	In this context, it is not surprising why the IMF undertook austerity
measures for Yugoslavia in 1990, which expedited Slovenia's and Crotia's
secession lest they should share the cost of rebuilding economy of
Yugoslavia.
	I do not intend to justify Serbian nationalism and ethnic cleansing,
whatever their "real" situations were. But one cannot blame one ethnic
exclusion, ignoring other many similar ones. The New York Times in
November 1 1987, when the US's interest in Balkan was not so
systematized, reported how major ethnic Albanian leadership had terrorized
the minority Serbs, causing 20,000 Serbs to flee. Slavic Orthodox churches
have been attacked, wells have been poisoned, crops were burned,
Slavic boy's have been killed, and young ethnic Albanians have been told
by their elders to rape Serbian girls. Serbia's revocation of the Kosovo
Albanian's autonomy need to be seen in this background. Reactive
nationalism does not emerge in a vacuum. In addition, after their
secession, Croats have undertaken "ethnic cleansing" of Serbian citizens from
Krajina region, which "international community" by and large ignored
(but see Independent, September 4, 1995).
	Even if Milosovic is a small monster, I don't think it's a good idea
to ask for a help of Big Monster.

　
> remember, socialists caved in and supported their national ruling classes
> in World War I.  That has happened again in Serbia today.  The cruelest
> historical comparison is that a defeated Serbia today will repeat the
> tragedy of Germany and Italy in the early 1920s where socialists turned
> nationalists bred fascists.  The cruelly nationalist response from the
> majority of Belgrade intellectuals suggests that this has already
> happened.  Where are the Serbian intellectuals today willing to oppose
> Milosevic, Serbian nationalism, fascism?

	By the same token, why most mainstream labour organizations
and labour friendly parties (including Green) in the west do not oppose
this war if it is an imperialist war as you say? On the other side of the
socialists'concessions in Germany and Italy to the nationalist fascists,
weren't there socialist' concessions to the national ruling classes in Europe?
They only proved the weakness of international socialism. Was it a legacy
of the Second International ?
	Can you blame Serbian intellectuals, who are targeted by NATO
bombing, are nationalist, while western self-righteous intellectuals who
advocate interventionist propaganda in the mainstream newspapers (e.g.
the staff like Susan Sontag) are kindly welcomed ?

　
> 	But bilateral defeat seems to be exactly where we are headed.
> Everyone knows that the NATO campaign is a disgusting failure at the cost
> of many lives, and yet it has been powerful enough to stop Milosevic (the
> Village Voice reports that Milosevic is moving his personal fortune to
> South Africa ....).
> For principled, strategic, bilateral defeat.

	No doubt. NATO will achieve its initial aim to establish its hegemonic
 role in the region, despite some political costs for their governments. Once
this initial aimto be achieved, it does not matter where Milosevic will flee.
After all, military industry has made a lot of profits. Stocks of the industry
have climbed since the start of the war.
	More important, ideological ground of military-industry-education
(C.Johnson) should be build up more firmly, while many western intellectuals
are unaware of what happening behind the play of humanitarian rescue.
I am afraid the most defeated segment is the critical (so-called) or leftish
intellectuals....



________________
Seiko Kitajima
Faculty of Humanities, Hirosaki University
1 Bunkyo-cho, Hirosaki-shi, Japan, 036
Tel. Fax: 81-(0)172-39-3285