Jeg fant en del gamle utskrifter, og klipper en diskusjon fra ChomskyChat
datert 5. mai 1999 rundt noen av de spørsmål Trond Andresen (Wed, 30 Jun
1999 12:56:00 +0200 Re: Sensasjonelt springbrett) ikke synes "venstresiden"
har bekymret seg med (se særlig begynnelsen av diskusjonen).
Selv heller jeg mot de synspunkter "Mihalis Panagiotakis" framfører mens
Trond Andresen vel sympatiserer mer med det "Thomas Garman" har skrevet.
En repatriering av flyktinger ville vært mulig under en forhandlingsløsning
etter betingelsesløs bombestopp, hvis bare NATO hadde vist en større
diplomatisk fleksibilitet.
Knut Rognes
*************Klipp start**************************
Subject: Re: Chomsky/Shalom/Albert on Pinochet and Kosova (from ChCh)
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 00:48:15
From: Mihalis Panagiotakis <MIXALHS@netscape.net>
Newsgroups: ChomskyChat
References: 1
Thomas Garman wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> "It may be possible that although the Serbs are wrong, the US is also
> wrong. This is the case now. So, yes, if NATO is doing something
> wrong, it is right to complain about NATO."
>
> I agree. But in this case, I feel that a withdrawl by NATO now would
> consititute and even greater wrong. At this point the Kosovars have been
> ejected from their homes and Yugoslavian intfrstructure has been seriously
> damaged... all of which must been seen as a consequence of Milosevic's
> politics.
No and no... It is not the case that a withdrawal by NATO "would
constitute an
even greater wrong", since this implies that a *negotiated settlement* that
would allow all the refugees to return and allows for a substantial
autonomy for
the region is out of the question. That is not the case. Unlike what people on
CNN are suggesting there was no serious attempt to find a peaceful solution to
the Kosovo question, since the Rambouillet treaty was specifically designed as
to be unacceptable to the Yugoslav side (for an analysis of the Rambouillet
proposal from a Swedish peace organization see:
http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/pf58.html and
http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/pf57.html). The Yugoslav side was indeed
prepared to grant significant autonomy to Kosovo, but refused to allow a)
*NATO*
troops and b)the possibility of independence for the province. Since (a)
was not
necessary (neutral countries would probably be acceptable to the Yugoslav side
under a UN command) and we are assured that (b) was something that NATO agreed
on supposedly, it is obvious that even back then if NATO so wished, an
agreement
that would absolutely protect the local Albanians and Serbs could have been
achieved. *Now* even though Milosevic would not accept any agreement that
could
be construed as a capitulation (since more than his political safety is
involved
here), he could conceivably support any kind of agreement brokered and
guaranteed by Russia that did *not* involve NATO command in Kosovo. Clearly
such
an agreement would guarantee the right of Albanians to return to their homes
under third party protection and also stop any further aggression against
Yugoslavia. The second no, refers to Milosevic culpability for the bombing of
his country, and I assure you *very* few Yugoslavs (including the opposition)
view it that way.
> Focussing on complaints about NATO are a way of exculpating the
> genocidal criminals at work in Kosovo (who were also at work in Bosnia and
> Croatia, etc. etc.), and that is exactly what the Serb government wants you
> to do.
I must object to the very wide use of the term "genocide". As I understand it
it means the systematic *elimination* of members of a particular ethnic group,
with the goal of eradicating them like the Nazis attempted to do to the Jews,
the Turks to the Armenians, the Indonesians to the E.Timorese or the US to the
American Indians f.e. Shipping them off to somewhere else does *not* qualify.
Also inconsistent with the meaning of the word is that apparently other
Albanians living in Belgrade (100000 of them) or Montenegro f.e. seem to
have no
problems remaining where they are.
Returning to your argument I suggest that focusing on NATO action if you
are a
member of a NATO country is the obvious thing to do since it is being done in
your name. I have an absolute disgust for the Serb nationalist tactics and
crimes but surely NATO did nothing but to provide them with an excellent cover
and immunity from *any* domestic criticism. An organized cleansing of this
scale, would not have been possible *before* the bombings, since it would be
opposed by a large part of the political spectrum in Yugoslavia. Ofcourse all
this if one assumes (which I don't) that Milosevic's goal is to keep 1.8
million
Albanians *permanently* out of Kosovo... not very likely... Milosevic is
interested in having one more (very powerful) bargaining tool, namely the
repatriation of all those (unwanted in the West and in Macedonia) refugees as
well as the total elimination of the KLA as a military presence.
> "Don't blame us," the Serb propoganda machine says, "the situation
> was made worse or even caused by NATO." The Serbs regularly report that the
> Kosovars are running not from Serb killers but from NATO bombers.
Which is not altogether unlikely (not the only reason of course).
> I think
> that if it had not been for NATO involvement, then there would not have been
> any refugees. But that is only becuase the Serb killing machine would have
> just contented itself with killing the Kosovars rather than making refugees
> of them. At present the Serbs have had to settle for killing some and
> letting others of them go to become refugees.
Actually if they were intent on killing all the Kosovars, *now* would be
their
perfect opportunity since they could always blame it on NATO, right? As for
imagining that the Yugoslav army would actually massacre almost two million
people, I would suggest that the source of this obvious exaggeration is the
adoption of the media stereotype of the Serbs as a "nation of murderers".
There
is *no* evidence of such an intent. 2000 dead on both sides in a period of a
year during a civil war, however horrific, surely does not suugest an
organised
plan of extermination does it?
> Complacency towards Milosevic
> led to the present situation, and negotiation with Milosevic will lead to
> another situation like it. To the far right in Milosevic's government there
> are yet Hungarians to drive out of Serbia and other minority groups to focus
> on once this is over.
However, interestingly, not even Seselj (who makes Milosevic look like a
peacenik) has ever suggested that removing the Hungarians would be
desirable, or
indeed even threaten the Albanians living in Belgrade *ever*. Yugoslavia does
not (as opposed to Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia) define itself as a country
of Serbs, but rather of anyone who lives in it. Belgrade is probably the most
multiethnic city in the Balkans, and you might want to ask local minorities
whether they even feel threatened... To claim that the Hungarian minority is
under threat one should provide some evidence.
> Noam and others complain that no one offers serious argument or
> justification for the current campaign. I would like to, but I am not a
> member of the establishment, so what good would my arguments do? The
> reasons given, so far as I understand them, for the current campaign were to
> (1) restore NATO credibility and (2) to stop Serb agression against the
> Kosovars in the region. For most of us, NATO never had any credibility to
> begin with. And on top of that, the Z crowd isn't interested in Serb
> agression anyway. The main players at Z magazine were steadfastly opposed
> to involvement in Bosnia even though it was clear that genocide was going
> on.
Again that word... Who was commiting "genocide" in Bosnia BTW? Only one side?
And how about the ethnic cleansing of Krajna (with ample US support)? Would
that
justify arming the Serb majority in the area? Bombing Zagreb? I think not....
But let's not get into Bosnia now and the "benefits" of NATO involvement...
That
is a whole other thread...
> If the Z establishment took a reprehensible stance toward Serb
> agression during the genocide in Bosnia, then we can only expect a response
> like the present one in reaction to the more ambiguous Serb agression in
> Kosovo.
So Serbs were *the* agressors in Bosnia? I wonder then how come there are
half
a million Bosnian Serb refugees in Yugoslavia as we speak. Were they the most
"efficient" agressors? Probably yes... But the *only* agressors? I don't think
so...
> Ambiguous though the Serb agression may have been, and may be now,
> it is still agression, and it still has genocidal aims which we are right to
> oppose.
As explaned above it has no such aims. We *are* right to oppose Serb
atrocities
in kosovo however. I presume that this can be done more effectively *as
soon as
the bombing stops*, at which point there might be even a war crimes
tribunal....
> Now, in our opposition to Serb agression do we (1) support other
> groups that oppose Serb agression, (2) oppose Serb agression in principle
> but do nothing practically to stop the agressors, or (3) oppose Serb
> agression in principle but undertake to ACT in such a way that Serb
> agression is actually aided and abetted.
That's quite a limited list of options. How about: support a negotiated
solution that would guarrantee the Albanians safety from *any* agressors and
guarrantee the rest of Yugoslavia safety from NATO agression?
> Noam and Stephen and others seem
> to fall somewhere around (2) or (3) when they argue so forcefully (along
> with the Serbs) that NATO involvement is wrong and ought to be ended.
Along with *all* serbs BTW, who are suffering attacks aimed at them and their
civilian infrastructure, and which are sure to inflict pain and horror to them
years after this conflict is over.
> Serbia would not accept any involvement in Kosovo that would restrict its
> ability to persecute the Kosovars, and ending NATO involvement now would
> only leave the Serb military firmly in control of Kosovo.
That is not supported by any evidence I am aware of. Any facts to back
this up?
As far as I know Yugoslavia is offering a pre-89 style autonomy to Kosovo
and my
bet is that it would be willing to discuss even a "third republic" status for
the region. It is willing to accept UN observers and (quite possibly )UN
troop,s
that would surely restrict its ability to persecute Albanian Kosovars. Ending
NATO involvement now would in fact minimize further civilian damage to the
rest
of Yugoslavia and (coupled with a diplomatic solution) would lead to the
repatriation of all refugees.
> The same was true
> in Bosnia before: Human Rights workers were witnesses to genocide, but were
> powerless to stop it becuase the Serbs only tolerated outside involvement so
> long as it was powerless outside invovlement.
Were they? On a large scale? Could you name some of these witnesses? I
tend to
believe that *most* of the atrocities (from all sides) in Bosnia happened whan
there was *noone* around to see them being performed.
> For my self I advocate (1),
> even though I recognize that some of those who oppose Serb agression are
> people I would not like to be associated with in other circumstances.
Actually it is my humble opinion that most of the NATO decision makers do not
give a damn about Serbian agression or Albanian safety and are in this for
reasons quite different than the ones claimed. Indeed I see the forced removal
of the Albanian population as one of NATO's *desired* goals, to further
justify
its involvement.
>
>
> Lots of people bear responsibility for the current situation. How can *we*
> do anything to hold any of those responsible accountable?
Certainly not by supporting the bombing of buses, the destruction of civilian
infrastructure and the total destabilization of the region....
Mihalis Panagiotakis
***************Klipp slutt**********************