Thanks for your insightful comments. But, my hatred for NATO is not greater
than my compassion for the oppression of Kosovar refugees. However, my
compassion for all those peoples who are and have been subjected to
oppression around the world (particularly in Africa and South America) is
greater than my compassion for one particular humanitarian crisis. What is
disturbing is that you have spent more time considering the plight the
Kosovars than you have any other group.
I see that you live in Australia and you would no doubt see the irony of
the Australian press (and John Howard) in rebuking Serbia for their ethnic
cleansing and yet the refusal to recognise that ethnic cleansing is a very
real part of Australia's history. I also find our Prime Minister's
eagerness to welcome the Kosovar refugees into Australia ironic given that
the Australian government compelled an 'illegal' immigrant/refugee to abort
her 8.5yo baby so that she had no possible reason to stay in Australia.
So, I suggest that we should look beyond what affects the interests of
NATO, the US and Europe. It is not a matter of being anti-NATO, it is a
matter of seeing colonial powers still at work and even, so it seems, in
your own writing ... ie the fact that you really haven't addressed the
humanitarian issues in the Congo, Columbia, Turkey, Rwanda, Angola ...
where the US has played a strategic role quite contrary to its role in
Kosovo. In refusing to acknowledge and deal with these issues, we are
supporting the process of colonisation and imperialism.
Cheers,
Darren
At 13:52 11/05/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Daren,
>
>I also think Chomsky is brilliant, but then again, there are not that many
>people out there who think that NATO or the US actually uphold the moral
>high ground - hands up all those who did not realise that the US has
>supported and is supporting corrupt dictatorships around the world. And
>while we all have our hands down, hands up all those who thought Milosevic
>was only cleansing terrorists from Kosovo and was not intending to drive
>out every last muslim Kosovor.
>
>Daren, your comments about the democratic Serbian parliament and the less
>than righteous NATO are very disturbing, and belie a profoundly
>conservative and orthodox socialist (excuse the tautology) approach which,
>in order to never be seen consorting with the evil mongering NATO, is
>prepared to stick with an illusory diplomacy and wait for Serbian democracy
>to rise from the ashes like a mythical Phoenix.
>
>And why is Serbian democracy eternally pure while US democracy is forever
>impure? Here we enter the popular good versus evil argument of totalitarian
>thought. And I do not want to follow you down that path. From my point of
>view, I struggle to differentiate the political processes that operate
>within any government, military, corporate or criminal enterprises.
>
>So under your plan, what would you say in twelve months time when the UN
>special teams are uncovering the mass graves: "What we have here is a human
>tragedy".
>
>Is your hatred for the NATO war machine greater than your compassion for
>the hundreds of thousands of Kosovor refugees fleeing and the tens of
>thousands of Kosovors who lie dead and buried in shallow pits?
>
>Given facts: Milosevic is going to try to drive every Kosovor from Kosovo,
>Diplomacy is going to be counter-productive, NATO bombing is going to be
>strategically ineffective, If NATO had done nothing, the cleansing would
>have been total and permanent... end of story. Its hard to find a neat
>solution with this lot, is it not?
>
>On my part, I support ineffective bombing by war mongering hypocrits,
>because its better than nothing. I can cope with the contradictions and the
>pausity of options, and I'm not seduced into a crude fundamental attack on
>world wide superpowers at the expense of human misery.
>
>>From my point of view, I find it incredible that the Serbian population,
>who overwhelmingly support Milosevic, sit at home and watch the war on
>their TV's in comfort, in their safe, warm and secure world, with
>electricity, hot water, gas, etc.
>
>I think the NATO strategy of mainly bombing empty military buidings was a
>monumental mistake; where on day thirty plus of the war, they started
>temporary nuissance disruptions to the power grid. Wow. Now thats what I
>call business.
>
>If in the first twenty-four hours, every road and rail bridge, power
>station, water works, gas works, oil refinery, sewerage plant etc., had
>been hit, then the Serbians would now still be safe, but at least they
>would be eating by candle light, washing from a bowl, and walking instead
>of driving. Symbolic and futile? Yes. Definitely.
>
>But at least its less futile than bombing a police station which has been
>empty for three months. The strategy might even have slowed the hitherto
>unhindered Serbian access into Kosovo - or have I missed something and
>there are other ways of slowing Serbian access?
>
>In part, Daren noted:
>
>"... NATO bombing has denied any possible chance the Serbian Democratic
>Party had of countering Milosovic. Nationalist fervour in response to the
>bombing has underswept the democratic movement there. The article also
>denies that just before the onset of bombing on 23 March, the Serbian
>Parliament were in the process of deciding that UN peace-keeping troops
>could be allowed to enter Kosovo."
>
>What, NATO killed Serbian democracy? Not the very same democracy that gave
>birth to Milosevic? What, after a million broken promises over ten years,
>the 23 March process was the first real step towards peace which was
>snuffed out by NATO? Not the very same parliament that would have
>previously passed appropriation bills to fund cleansing in Kosovo, Bosnia,
>Croatia, etc., etc? Gosh, naughty naughty NATO.
>
>Daren, your logic of NATO bad, democracy good, is indistinguishable from
>the Milosevic logic of Serbia good, Kosovor bad. Beware of logic which is
>linear, neat and devoid of contradiction.
>
>I think Foucault was aware of the dangers of linear fundamentalism, and I
>think he would have appreciated the complexities and ambiguities behind
>such a crisis, as well as the pervasive and invasive nature of the vested
>interests involved. And I very much doubt he would have placed faith in the
>virgin birth of a new and free Serbian order.
>
>Tony Ralph (at least I tried to put Foucault in, even if only a footnote)
>
>
>
>
than my compassion for the oppression of Kosovar refugees. However, my
compassion for all those peoples who are and have been subjected to
oppression around the world (particularly in Africa and South America) is
greater than my compassion for one particular humanitarian crisis. What is
disturbing is that you have spent more time considering the plight the
Kosovars than you have any other group.
I see that you live in Australia and you would no doubt see the irony of
the Australian press (and John Howard) in rebuking Serbia for their ethnic
cleansing and yet the refusal to recognise that ethnic cleansing is a very
real part of Australia's history. I also find our Prime Minister's
eagerness to welcome the Kosovar refugees into Australia ironic given that
the Australian government compelled an 'illegal' immigrant/refugee to abort
her 8.5yo baby so that she had no possible reason to stay in Australia.
So, I suggest that we should look beyond what affects the interests of
NATO, the US and Europe. It is not a matter of being anti-NATO, it is a
matter of seeing colonial powers still at work and even, so it seems, in
your own writing ... ie the fact that you really haven't addressed the
humanitarian issues in the Congo, Columbia, Turkey, Rwanda, Angola ...
where the US has played a strategic role quite contrary to its role in
Kosovo. In refusing to acknowledge and deal with these issues, we are
supporting the process of colonisation and imperialism.
Cheers,
Darren
At 13:52 11/05/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Daren,
>
>I also think Chomsky is brilliant, but then again, there are not that many
>people out there who think that NATO or the US actually uphold the moral
>high ground - hands up all those who did not realise that the US has
>supported and is supporting corrupt dictatorships around the world. And
>while we all have our hands down, hands up all those who thought Milosevic
>was only cleansing terrorists from Kosovo and was not intending to drive
>out every last muslim Kosovor.
>
>Daren, your comments about the democratic Serbian parliament and the less
>than righteous NATO are very disturbing, and belie a profoundly
>conservative and orthodox socialist (excuse the tautology) approach which,
>in order to never be seen consorting with the evil mongering NATO, is
>prepared to stick with an illusory diplomacy and wait for Serbian democracy
>to rise from the ashes like a mythical Phoenix.
>
>And why is Serbian democracy eternally pure while US democracy is forever
>impure? Here we enter the popular good versus evil argument of totalitarian
>thought. And I do not want to follow you down that path. From my point of
>view, I struggle to differentiate the political processes that operate
>within any government, military, corporate or criminal enterprises.
>
>So under your plan, what would you say in twelve months time when the UN
>special teams are uncovering the mass graves: "What we have here is a human
>tragedy".
>
>Is your hatred for the NATO war machine greater than your compassion for
>the hundreds of thousands of Kosovor refugees fleeing and the tens of
>thousands of Kosovors who lie dead and buried in shallow pits?
>
>Given facts: Milosevic is going to try to drive every Kosovor from Kosovo,
>Diplomacy is going to be counter-productive, NATO bombing is going to be
>strategically ineffective, If NATO had done nothing, the cleansing would
>have been total and permanent... end of story. Its hard to find a neat
>solution with this lot, is it not?
>
>On my part, I support ineffective bombing by war mongering hypocrits,
>because its better than nothing. I can cope with the contradictions and the
>pausity of options, and I'm not seduced into a crude fundamental attack on
>world wide superpowers at the expense of human misery.
>
>>From my point of view, I find it incredible that the Serbian population,
>who overwhelmingly support Milosevic, sit at home and watch the war on
>their TV's in comfort, in their safe, warm and secure world, with
>electricity, hot water, gas, etc.
>
>I think the NATO strategy of mainly bombing empty military buidings was a
>monumental mistake; where on day thirty plus of the war, they started
>temporary nuissance disruptions to the power grid. Wow. Now thats what I
>call business.
>
>If in the first twenty-four hours, every road and rail bridge, power
>station, water works, gas works, oil refinery, sewerage plant etc., had
>been hit, then the Serbians would now still be safe, but at least they
>would be eating by candle light, washing from a bowl, and walking instead
>of driving. Symbolic and futile? Yes. Definitely.
>
>But at least its less futile than bombing a police station which has been
>empty for three months. The strategy might even have slowed the hitherto
>unhindered Serbian access into Kosovo - or have I missed something and
>there are other ways of slowing Serbian access?
>
>In part, Daren noted:
>
>"... NATO bombing has denied any possible chance the Serbian Democratic
>Party had of countering Milosovic. Nationalist fervour in response to the
>bombing has underswept the democratic movement there. The article also
>denies that just before the onset of bombing on 23 March, the Serbian
>Parliament were in the process of deciding that UN peace-keeping troops
>could be allowed to enter Kosovo."
>
>What, NATO killed Serbian democracy? Not the very same democracy that gave
>birth to Milosevic? What, after a million broken promises over ten years,
>the 23 March process was the first real step towards peace which was
>snuffed out by NATO? Not the very same parliament that would have
>previously passed appropriation bills to fund cleansing in Kosovo, Bosnia,
>Croatia, etc., etc? Gosh, naughty naughty NATO.
>
>Daren, your logic of NATO bad, democracy good, is indistinguishable from
>the Milosevic logic of Serbia good, Kosovor bad. Beware of logic which is
>linear, neat and devoid of contradiction.
>
>I think Foucault was aware of the dangers of linear fundamentalism, and I
>think he would have appreciated the complexities and ambiguities behind
>such a crisis, as well as the pervasive and invasive nature of the vested
>interests involved. And I very much doubt he would have placed faith in the
>virgin birth of a new and free Serbian order.
>
>Tony Ralph (at least I tried to put Foucault in, even if only a footnote)
>
>
>
>