Re: The Case for Supporting Bosnia Peace Plan

["Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Should it succeed - and I think it will - the NATO implementation of
Dayton will certainly confirm the existence and power of two massive
antiworker states: Greater Croatia and Greater Serbia.
        This, btw, as further proof is coming out that the Serbs used
sarin on thousands of Kosovar youths in '90.
        But - setting aside the totally moronic premise of the spreading
war - how do Marxists hope to gain from continued war?  This is not a
rhetorical, but a strategic question.  I realize the false opposition
that we are usually being faced with is artificial and manipulative.  But
when have Marxists and the working class stood to gain from a war?
        Given recent posts on this list, clearly WWI generated the
situation to topple Tsarist Russia.  an example.
        No flames, please.  This is a vital question.



Bryan Alexander
Department of English
University of Michigan
**********************

On Wed, 6 Dec 1995 TimW333521@xxxxxxx wrote:

> While I assume many, perhaps most, on the left oppose sending U.S. troops to
> Bosnia, little is being said about this, and no action that I know of is
> being taken.  The main opposition to troops comes from the Republicans and
> becomes the more virulent the farther to the right one goes.  I would suggest
> that this right wing, essentially isolationist, attack on the Bosnian peace
> plan is caused by the fact that, with all its huge flaws, the plan is overall
> a positive good and in the interests of the Bosnian people and its working
> class.  As internationalists we Marxists should support it.
>
> Why?
>
> 1)  There is a good chance the war is over and the Bosnian people can live
> under relative conditions of peace.  Only such conditions will permit a
> revival of the Bosnian labor movement.
>
> 2) Since the war was an ethnic one which was harmful to all sides, its ending
> is a positive good.
>
> 3) There is least a chance that a multi-ethnic Bosnia, or a multi-ethnic
>  portion of Bosnia (Sarajevo) will survive.  If the war continued there would
> be no such chance.
>
> 3)  The main aggressor, Serbia, though not defeated,  was at least stanched.
>
> 4)  Most compelling: this peace, imperfect as it is, is the ONLY real
> alternative to continued fratricide.
>
> Having established that this flawed peace is better than the continued
> horrors of war and genocide, the question remains: is there any alternative
> way to secure the peace than the sending of U.S. troops in as part of NATO?
>
> To which I would answer:
>
> 1)  There was no "working class" way.  There exists no workers state anywhere
> with the leadership, will or power to enforce a peace settlement.  Workers
> without state power are quite powerless in this kind of situation.  Let's be
> real!
>
> 2)  A true multi-national UN-type force would have had more input from
> non-imperialist nations than NATO.  But such an alternative was not in the
> cards because those who REALLY control the UN are the same as those who
> control NATO, and they fear building a UN force with even potential
> independence from them.
>
> But then: Is not the U.S. an imperialist power and will it not therefore
> impose its will, its interests, its social system upon all sides in Bosnia?
>  Certainly.
>
> But:
>
> 1)  None of the belligerants are waging an anti-imperialist struggle and so
> the issue is not the suppression of such a struggle.
>
> 2)  It is difficult to see how the U.S. could impose upon Bosnia what is
> already there.  The reality is that Bosnia will be no more nor less
> "socialist" after a year of U.S. troops than it is now.
>
> 3) I would suggest there will be a far better chance for socialism  there in
> a year or two than there is there now.  This is not only because socialism is
> of little use to dead bodies but because the conditions of war have
> encouraged right wing revanchist forces on all sides.
>
> 4)  This leads me to the contrarian notion that from time to time, while
> acting in its own interests, the U.S. can actually do something which is
> represents broader interests.
>
> Example: Haiti!  The left is in far better shape in Haiti today than before
> the U.S. intervention.  This may not fit well with our traditional views but
> it does fit the facts!
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------