michael.benson on Wed, 5 May 1999 19:04:01 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Igor Korsic on Academics Against |
[orig not to nettime] Like a lot of people in this corner of the planet, including myself, Igor Korsic reacted with a kind of pained annoyance at the recent manifesto titled "ACADEMICS AGAINST NATO'S WAR IN THE BALKANS", signed by a heavyweight cast of dome-heads who should probably (but not certainly!) know better than to speak before doing the requisite research -- not to mention use some of that grey matter which they trade in so successfully. As Korsic, a professor at Ljubljana University, put it to me, "mostly people, not seldom academics, just throw their undigested and mixed up feelings about issues at each other. They are usually obsessed with their good intentions and the things they are allergic to. Consequently they seldom have any knowledge of, sometimes even no interest in, the issues they are supposedly arguing about." Chomsky in particular has been, I think, quite effectively countered by the text "BETWEEN APPEASEMENT AND AGGRESSION: RESPONDING TO EVENTS IN KOSOVO", which was included in Ivo Scoric's "ivogram 050299: democracy, action, either/or" (nettime, Mon, 3 May 1999 03:39:54 +0100; it must be at their website by now). But I think Professor Korsic's point by point rebuttal of Chomsky, Said, etc and their "ACADEMICS AGAINST..." text is well worth reading. It's attached below. [I'm not adding the subject manifesto as it's been in heavy circulation and is easy to find.] Greetings, Michael Benson ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:02:18 +0200 From: Igor Korsic <Igor.Korsic@guest.arnes.si> Subject: Kosovo To: michael.benson@pristop.si EDWARD SAID, COLUMBIA ALEX CALLINICOS, YORK NOAM CHOMSKY, MICHIGAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PETER LINEBAUGH, TOLEDO GREGOR MCLENNAN, BRISTOL GEORGE DAVEY-SMITH, BRISTOL ELLEN MEIKSINS WOOD, USA DAVID HOWELL, YORK CHRIS NORRIS, CARDIFF ROBIN BLACKBURN, CAMBRIDGE MALCOLM POVEY, LEEDS CRITICAL COMMENTS OF ACADEMICS AGAINST NATO'S WAR IN THE BALKANS by Igor Korsic "We reject these false dilemmas: - Support NATO intervention or support the reactionary policy of the Serbian regime in Kosovo?" *This dilemma is indeed false. NATO may not be the best organisation on the world, western capitalism is surely far from ideal solution for all the problems of humanity, and international politics do not imply justice for everybody. But I would support the devil himself (as Churchill said of the fight against Hitler) in order to stop atrocities against Kosovars at the hands of the Serbs that have been going on since at least 1912 (to better understand the history I recommend Kosovo - a short history, by Noel Malcolm). In Bosnia, non-intervention against Serb aggression produced 250,000 dead, 2 million ethnically cleansed, 25,000 raped, and 16,000 children dead in Sarajevo alone. "The NATO air-strikes, forcing the withdrawal of the OSCE forces from Kosovo, have facilitated and not prevented a ground offensive by Serb paramilitary forces; " *The OSCE themselves are the best placed to comment on the effectiveness of their actions and their reasons for withdrawal. But the essential point to bear in mind is: the Serb action that is now taking place was planned for October 1998 and, initially, deterred by the threat of bombing. The current action was intended to start with spring weather and Serb troops already in situ - a pattern that is already familiar from Bosnia. Nato air strikes are clearly NOT responsible for this premeditated ground offensive. Both logistically, militarily and morally they are making the Serb ground offensive more difficult and less certain of success. State terrorism against civilians is easy to acomplish and next to impossible to prevent, and be sure that Milosevic counts on that fact. What would you say were the world to witness the same Serb offensive against Albanian Kosovars were NATO nowhere near? As was the case in Bosnia! "they encourage retaliation against the Kosovar population by the worst Serb ultra-nationalists; they consolidate the dictatorial power of Slobodan Milosevic, who has crushed the independent media and rallied around him a national consensus which it is necessary on the contrary to break in order to open the way to peaceful political negotiations over Kosovo." * You ignore the fact that such "retaliation" has been advocated intensively for the last 10 years in Serbia. According to official Serb propaganda, there is no Kosovo problem nor ever has been. But there is peace in Kosovo. Seselj, for whom the epithet "worst ultra nationalist" would be mild, was Milosevic's minister of interior for several years in the run up to the present Kosovo crisis. He is likely to be personally responsible for the present campaign. And the dictatorial power of Milosevic was consolidated long time ago. The NATO intervention has changed nothing substantially, while, on the other hand, non-intervention would have meant appeasement. "- Accept as the only possible basis of negotiation the `peace plan' elaborated by the governments of the United States or the European Union - or bomb Serbia? No durable solution to a major political conflict internal to a state can be imposed from the outside, by force." * Given the facts of the case, the gravity of the conflict, the violence already there (250,000 Kosovars were displaced last year and 2000 killed) the peace plan proposed was in fact the only possible solution. In fact it only signified a reconstitution of the status Albanians had enjoyed under last ten years of Tito. The alternative - to do nothing - would be to witness another ethnic carnage. One Bosnia on my conscience is more than enough! "It is not true that `everything has been tried' to find a solution and an acceptable framework for negotiations. The Kosovar negotiators were forced to sign a plan which they had initially rejected after being led to believe that NATO would involve itself on the ground to defend their cause. This was a lie which maintained a total illusion: none of the governments which support the NATO strikes wants to make war on the Serbian regime to impose the independence of Kosovo. The air-strikes will perhaps weaken a part of the Serbian military apparatus but they will not weaken the mortar fire which, on the ground, is destroying Albanian homes, or the paramilitary forces who are killing the fighters of the Kosovo Liberation Army." *You are gravely underestimating the KLA. They are not claiming what you ascribe to them above. The KLA are not as unrealistic as you claim. The mortar fire was destroying Albanian homes before the intervention. And they would do it again, with or without intervention. The OSCE are the ones best placed to to render a more accurate picture of the true situation in Kosovo prior to the present crisis. Please do not act on your noble principles alone, but take into regard as many facts as possible! For anybody to sign a petition like this, with such grave consequences, at the very least to have read Noel Malcolm's book should be obligatory. Especially given the fact that you are academics! "NATO is not the only or above all the best fulcrum for an agreement. One could find the elements of a multi-national police force (embracing notably Serbs and Albanians) in the ranks of the OSCE to enforce a transitional agreement." *Even UNPROFOR did not function in Bosnia! To make more experiments of this sort would be naive in the extreme! "One could extend the negotiations to include the Balkan states destabilized by the conflict: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania. One could at the same time support the right of the Kosovars to self-government and the protection of the Serb minority in Kosovo; one could try to respond to the aspirations and fears of the different peoples concerned by links of co-operation and agreements among neighbouring states, with Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania. None of this has been tried." * This is pure daydreaming! You have been sleeping for last nine years! The propositions are indeed worthy and, in due course, must be addressed. But only after the defeat of the Milosevic regime. You cannot experiment and let the patient die. "We reject the arguments which seek to justify the NATO intervention: - It is not true that the NATO air-strikes are going to prevent a regional flare-up, in Macedonia or in Bosnia-Herzegovina: they are going on the contrary to feed the flames. They are going to destabilize Bosnia-Herzegovina and without doubt menace the multi-national forces responsible for applying the fragile Dayton accords. They are already setting Macedonia alight." *Assuming that you know something about Milosevic, the behaviour and the past deeds of his regime, how is it possible to conceive of a negotiated stability in the region that includes him and the political program he ceaselessly pursues? Are you aware that you deal with a policy that is generally accepted by the Serb population, and that, in their perception, there was nothing peculiar with this policy of last ten years, except for the fact that Yugsolavia has become, unjustly, the victim of criminal enemies of the West?! Stability? If Milosevic is going to negotiate his way out of this, then he is the winner. If he is the winner then the fictitious 'stability' he represents in the minds of some will only encourage others to pursue a politics of ethnic hatred and perpetual crisis both in this region as well as Russia. "- It is not true that NATO is protecting the Kosovar population and its rights." * At this time such protection is not possible on the ground, but the intervention of NATO does indeed protect their future interests. Why do you not take into account their opinion? They welcome NATO intervention. How would you propose to protect Kosovar Albanians in Kosovo now?? "- It is not true that their bombing of Serbia opens the way to a democratic regime in Serbia." *The question of how to 'democratise' Serbia, after 10 years in which the state has sponsored violence, installed indicted war criminals as ministers, refused to acknowledge election results and, most importantly, derived its program from a propaganda of ethnic hatred - it is indeed a hard question. The only parallel in European history gives us the model of complete military defeat, faced with this kind of totalitarian phenomenon. How would you go about democratising Serbia? "The governments of the European Union, like that of United States, perhaps hoped that this demonstration of force would compel Slobodan Milosevic to sign their plan. Haven't they thereby displayed naivete or hypocrisy? In any case this policy is leading not only to a political impasse, but to the legitimation of a role for NATO outside any international framework of control." *If they knew history of Kosovo, and listening to them I presume they do know something of it, they do not expect an easy solution. But the alternative was to stand by and do nothing. This is, let us face it, what you propose! Where a mass violation of human rights occurs, then, surely, it must be accepted that the principle of state sovereignty can and must be overridden. Even an Albanian Kosovar has basic human rights, the right to live. 'This is why we demand: - an immediate halt to the bombing; - the organization of a Balkan conference in which the representatives of the states and of all the national communities within these states take part; - defence of the right of peoples to self-determination, on the sole condition that this right is not fulfilled on the back of another people and by the ethnic cleansing of territory.' * These are eminently sensible and proper proposals, but based on a false premise: the bombing should stop ONLY when Milosevic accepts the well known five points or is militarily defeated. To fail to meet this basic criteria would mean to legitimise premeditated state terrorism. To appease, to be persuaded by false calls for peace from a belligerant regime would create a political paradigm that is far more dangerous for our world than the risks of the bombing mission. When academics enter politics waving papers that declare appeasement, one cannot help remembering the all too recent tragedy of Bosnia. Why can a lesson not be learned? The local history, this complex geopolitics is dense and obscure for those not familiar with it. Serb propaganda feeds on 'otherworld' naivity: it is both subtle and cunning. Therefore please inform yourselves before you undertake any action that may have such grave consequences. A minimum can be gleaned from Noel Malcolm's two books: KOSOVO, A SHORT HISTORY and BOSNIA, A SHORT HISTORY Macmillan, Papermac, London , 1988 Yours Igor Korsic Professor, University of Ljubljana PS: A good way to verify the likely consequences of your petition would be to send it to the Serb minister of interior Vojisalv Seselj! He is qualified to sign - he is an academic, a sociologist. And a paramiliary leader, wanted in the Hague for direct participation in war crimes in Bosnia. If he signs it, which I suspect he would, then you know what to do. And the Yugoslav president himself is certainly counting on such efforts as yours to build up pressure against NATO intervention. He might contribute his signature. And why stop there? Arkan is now a legend, whose signature must carry a certain elan, and there are hundreds of other indicted war criminals in Serbia, many with academic qualifications, and tens of thousands whose names are still unknown to the Hague. So - collect more signatures! Swell your ranks! March together! Pin targets on your daughter's blouses! Join the party in Belgrade! Sorry, I could not help it! Michael Benson <michael.benson@pristop.si> <http://www.ljudmila.org/kinetikon/> --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl