[PEN-L:6258] Re: Why Nato needs to destroy Serbia

[Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxx>]

At 01:05 PM 4/30/99 -0400, Lou wrote:
>>I don't quite get the connection here between economic stagnation in
>>Western Europe and bombing Belgrade. What do you think it is?
>>
>>Doug
>
>Final paragraphs of Sean Gervasi's "Why Nato is in Yugoslavia", at:
>http://www.mclink.it/assoc/fondpasti/nato/gerv-e.htm



I have problems with their argument.  Assuming that the claim of systemic
criss in Western Europe is true and that the ruling elite is determined to
do something about it - how does the eastward expansion of NATO solve that
problem for the ruling elite, and why does that that expansion have to be
military?  I do no not see a connection there.

1. There is no need for any intervention that would allow the West a direct
control over Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries.  The policies of
the central planning regime were hioghly protectionis of the domestic
industries, so back then a direct control made sense, as it would brek the
protectionist barriers.  But after 1989 is CEE countries that are bending
backwards to attract Western capital  - and being frustrated with what they
seee as insufficient interest in investing in their countries.

More generally, direct control over CEE could serve strategic goals of
x-USSR pursuing a 2nd World War stretegy of building a buffer zone around
its border.  But today such buffer zone has little significance - both
militarly and economically.  Why would anyone want to extend a direct
control over terriotory when there is little to gain militarily from from
that control (CEE might have usefulness as a buffor zone  in 1920s to
contain the Soviet Russia - but not today) and these countries can be
exploited economically without the necessity of direct foreign rule?

2. Assuming Rosa Luxemburg's argument that capitalism constantly needs
underdeveloped zones to maintain its expansion - that may justify the
eastward expansion of western economies.  But if that is so, bringing NATO
to the picture is counterproductive, because it re-divides CEE politically
and militarly, and thus erects obstacles to further economic expansion.  In
other words, the colonisation of CEE by capitalist economy would be more
far reaching without than with NATO.

Again I do not think that there is an overall master plan or capitalist
conspiracy to take over CEE.  I view it as a rather incoherent process of
muddling through, with no master plan, no coherent strategy, conflicting
interests, great uncertainty, and even greater short-term opportunism.

Wojtek
>