Reports by Chomsky, http://www.lbbs.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html
Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.lbbs.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html
Andre Gunder Fank, http://www.zmag.org/gunder.htm
and the continuing cycle of civilian deaths at the hands of NATO,
clearly indicate that the Western militarist powers have promoted the
dissolution of Yugoslavia and that the bombing campaign is not effective
in its stated goals (humanitarianism), although Chomsky argues that the
goals may simply be the "crediblity of NATO" which has led to the
manipulation
of the negotiation process http://www.lbbs.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html.
Furthermore, it seems that Serbia, Croatia and the KLA each have promoted
militarist solutions and I don't think anyone would compare the KLA to
an authentic liberatory force.
As a result, I am wondering if there is a concensus about broadening
the mutual defeat argument to that of Croatia and the KLA? If one adopts
this position what would it mean operationally?
First, one key issue is to promote good faith negotiations because without
these NATO's hand is strengthened.
Second, simply stopping the bombing, however, will leave the NATO
interventionary apparatus in place (and the military apparatus of
Serbia, Croatia, and the KLA), and continues the logic of undevelopment and
concentration of power so there needs to be a framework
for demilitarization.
Third, demilitarization is heavily dependent on a democratization process
among the various parties, yet the support of the bombing creates a
"war dividend" effect (which we saw Bush pull of in the first Gulf War)
of helping to limit dimilitarization and democracy (the political mobilization
around the peace dividend, conversion, and related military budget campaigns).
After a fairly weak diversification program (Clinton), Clinton and Blair
helped finish the job of Bush and co to sustain militarism. By
"democratization"
I mean the creation of accountability systems and extension of alternative
voices against war mongering, etc.
Yet, in considering how to accumulate the political capital necessary for
good faith negotiations, demilitarization and democracy, we need to shift
the debate
beyond the Kosovo crisis per se. We need to ask other questions.
First, I am wondering if Seiko Kitajima's comments about Susan Sontag etc.,
the embrace of NATO and the bombing by elements of the left and peace
movement reflects an intellectual crisis here, i.e. does the left/peace
movement's historic failure to have a theory of how power can be accumulated
create the kind of opportunism in which intellectuals join forces with
NATO in order to provide a sense of agency about how to influence world
events?
Second, is the inability to take a crisis and link it to a broader
transformative strategy based on a kind of "journalism think," spectacular
topicality, in which media-filtered reality ends up defining strategic
responses? In the Whole World is Watching, Todd Gitlin criticized
how short-term the New Left was based on a myopic sense of "time."
Gitlin was probably off the mark in failing to understand how effective
the New Left actually WAS in using the media, but he was right to argue
that short term antiwar approaches ended up excluding long term approaches,
e.g. a focus on the U.S. universities' roles in perpetuating militarism.
This does not mean that the tragedy in Yugoslavia is not a crisis requiring
an immediate response. It does mean, however, that we need to address the
cycle of repeated interventions with longer term approaches. This is
an area in which geographers can play a critical role, especially by
exploring long term demilitarization strategies and making them part of
the curriculum and larger public discourse.
________________________________________________________________________________
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]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|