 |
 |
In reply to Marc Mulholland Wars between nations end either in capitulation and defeat of one side or in negotiated compromise. NATO's strategy is clearly to force Milosevic to capitulate and accept western dominance. This can only be achieved by sending in ground troops and beginning a bloody slaughter in the Balkans. Milosevic will try to achieve a strong bargaining position before negotiations take place, this means not only driving the Kosovans out but also quite possibly attacks from Serbia launched back into Bosnia or Macedonia. There used to be (before the NATO bombing) an opposition movement in Serbia. Now it is huddling in air raid shelters and in full suppport of Milosevic. When will the liberal left ever learn that western capitalism will always prefer war as a means to produce a cowed and subservient tyrant to the alternative of revolutionary opposition ? Every western bomb that falls on IRAQ or Serbia pushes back the time when an opposition movement can overthrow those regimes. Stop the bombing now. Repeal all restrictive asylum laws and help the refugees. Support the opposition in Serbia. Martin Upchurch On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:53:36 +0100 (BST) Marc Mulholland <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi George and everyone, > > An imperialist alliance of NATO, Serbia and the KLA! Strange idea when > they're busy killing each other. > > One might well say 'down with all nationalisms'but they exist and it would > make more sense to take this into account. Clearly the position has been > reached that to argue for a federation including Kosovo and Serbia is > completely unrealistic. For all their weaknesses, the KLA represent the > legitimate Kosovan demand for self-determination. NATO attempts to deny > this right should be opposed. > > What of the NATO campaign against Serbia? Clearly it is misconcieved from > a strategic point of view - only the commital of ground troops will secure > the end to Serbian aggression in Kosovo (as far as I can see there is far > from adequate evidence to suggest anything like a campaign of genocide). > Do socialists oppose it 'on principle? I can't see why. What is the > rationale for opposing any and all western military action? Would it not > have been legitimate for the west to interven in Rwanda to prevent the > (very real) genocide there? > > We can criticise the hypocrisy of the west's selective use of military > force, and the selfish geo-political interests they usually entail > (though they are far from obvious in this case - thus the general > uphappiness with the initiative from the Tory and Republican right in GB & > USA). But to oppose any military action strikes me as simply reflex action > pacifism. Why should the use of armed force be treated differently from > other forms of action on an international stage - international law, > treaties, aid programmes, sanctions, trade, etc.. To simply oppose it all > as 'capitalist' is barren and pseudo-radical. Polical analysis should be a > gude to action in the real world. > > I say: Demand self-determination for the KLA, and the west to oppose by > any means necessary humanitarian outrage and national oppression. Treat > international armed actions as any other international operations, and > judge them on a case by case basis. > > All the best, > > Marc Mulholland. > ---------------------------------------- Upchurch, Martin Email: [log in to unmask] "University of the West of England" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%