Dear Dr. Chomsky,
I've read your answer on "Kosovo" ("Yugoslavia a country under siege" and "why is the left silent regarding Yugoslavia and the possible NATO agression on Yugoslavia") and I confess it left me a bit puzzled, since you don't condemn categorically NATO intervention in that region - Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. (the list may become endless if NATO goes on adding countries to its target at the present rate).
Of course, you say eventual NATO bombing would be a "gross violation of international law", but you also point out that Yugoslav forces have been involved in large scale atrocities (true, of course, but isn't that the case in any war?), and you add that an argument against bombing is that it "might make things worse" for (Albanian) refugees - implying that, if bombing the Serbs would help those refugees, then bombing (by NATO) should be welcomed.
Now, please correct me if I misunderstood you, but I am under the impression that your position opens the way for legitimizing almost any type of Western or NATO involvement around the World. After all, conflicts arise everywhere; and there will always be a side that is "weaker" than the other, thus being able to plausibly present itself as a "victim of aggression" - and NATO, the US, etc. may use the pretext of "helping the weak" to intervene anywhere, from now on with the added bonus of support from left wing intellectuals anxious to help "victims". Suffice for NATO to use a 90's version of classical European imperialist ideology (we intervene to restore "order", so that the rule of law shall apply to countries under the yoke of "barbarism", massacres etc. - i. e. all the partly true clichés of the 19th century) and the trick will be done.
In my opinion that is the nightmarish tendency for the future, and we'll probably see many more armed Western interventions supported by the Left intelligentsia.
This, of course, is nothing new. It happened in the Vietnam war in the early sixties: at that time only die-hard Stalinists opposed American intervention - for the wrong reasons. Most of the non-communist Left (with a handful of honourable exceptions, like yourself) supported it - until Americans started dying in large numbers and the intelligentsia suddenly discovered the war was, after all, "unfair". There will be one difference, though - a key one. In the 60s, victims might have got support from the second Superpower - an option available no more.
So I think you might agree with me that the choices present for Third World peoples in the nineties and beyond are indeed bleak - they'll either be prepared to fight armed Western intervention, with all the horrible human costs that decision will entail, including a high (nay, virtually certain) probability of defeat - or else have to submit meekly to the West's almighty wishes (or, at most, use ruse to cheat them). Claiming otherwise will only contribute to more needless illusions for the 80% of the World's population who happen to live at the wrong end of the New World Order.
The tendency for the the next century seems to be: the Left shall support NATO - and NATO will have "carte blanche" to strike anywhere.
END OF TEXT
"I'll keep (mostly) to the phrases quoted or referred to: (1) `NATO bombing would be a "gross violation of international law"' (2) `you also point out that Yugoslav forces have been involved in large scale atrocities' (3) `you add that an argument against bombing is that it "might make things worse" for (Albanian) refugees - implying that, if bombing the Serbs would help those refugees, then bombing (by NATO) should be welcomed.'
I'd certainly accept (1) and (2), and I take it we agree on that. So the query reduces to (3). The context was the standard argument that the bombing was motivated by humanitarian concerns, hardly credible in general, and specifically in this case because it "might make things worse" for refugees. In fact, even the threat had already made things worse because relief agencies had been compelled to withdraw. In that context, I'd also accept (3), minus what you say it implies, and I suspect we'd agree about that too.
So I don't really see the point of disagreement. There's every reason to oppose "gross violations of international law" and the right of the powerful to do as they please. On the other hand, if someone were to suggest that this be adopted as a literally absolute principle, I would disagree; and more generally, doubt that it makes sense to propose anything as a literal moral absolute. There is, however, an extremely heavy burden of proof to be borne by anything like a NATO (meaning US) decision to carry out yet another illegal act of violence. I don't believe the burden is IN PRINCIPLE unbearable, but that's a matter for seminars in moral philosophy, not real world choices. With that possible exception (and I doubt that it's real), I don't see the issue."
END OF QUOTE
Back to my HOMEPAGE
© 1998 Send me your comments
Get your own Free Home Page