Re: Re:Human Rights

["nathan riley" <natriley@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My human rights friends have been supportive of the intervention in the
Balkans.  But the terrible price being paid by Serbian and Armenian
civilians hardly makes this a successful humanitarian mission.  It was
predictable that a sharp increase in refugees from Kosvo would take place
after the bombing.   The Pentagon said on the record through its spokesman
that it did not endorse the bombing only solution.

A human rights solution would involve troops acting like policemen.  They
would be seeking to arrests individuals for criminal acts, and bring them
before an international tribunal.  In addition, the troops would cordon off
civilian areas and make them safe so that there is a minimal refugee
problem.  Finally, in a humanitarian mission such as through the UN, media
would be established that would contradict chauvinist and ethnic lies and
seek to establish harmonious relations.

While some of these notions have been part of the NATO intervention, the
bombings seemed to have been a setback for humanitarian concerns.

The fears that there might a second -- realpolitik agenda -- might be well
founded.  The bombings will make life miserable for Serbians unless they
turn to NATO for economic restoration.  What may be at stake here is
defeating a great Russia pan-serbian movement that would restore boundaries
of the old Soviet Union.  Unhappily, I don't know enough about Beylorussia
(including how to spell its name) and Soviet politics to speak with any
authority at all. Nonetheless, it seems clear to me that the United States
and NATO are committed to a weak and divided former Soviet Union.

Could it be that the present crisis represents some kind of reaction to
(consequence of)  an enlarged NATO .
However I don't know what I am talking about.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Elias.Karagiannis@xxxxxxx>
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 11:21 PM
Subject: Re:Human Rights


>
>
> Peter,
>
> The invasion of Yugoslavia is not about human rights. NATO does not give a
> damn about violations of human rights in its own member states, why should
> it care about the human rights of the Kosovar Albanians?
> Let me justify my statement. Read the following headline from the
> Associated Press and ask yourself why NATO does not care about the rights
> of the Kurds. Or even better, go back and check the AP reports on the
> number of Kurds killed by the NATO country with NATO arms since the
> beginning of the year, or if you wish, since 1998. (you may go back to
1984
> if you want). Compare it with the killings of Albanians in Kosovo.  The
> NATO member country wins hands down.
>
> Turkish troops kill 44 Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq
> By Associated Press, 04/10/99 08:11
> <WIRE_BODY
> ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkish troops killed 44 Kurdish rebels in their
> latest cross-border offensive in neighboring Iraq, the military said
today.
> Ten Turkish soldiers were also killed.
>
> I do not believe that the American-led NATO discriminates against the
human
> rights of the Kurds. And in case you are wondering, the violation of the
> rights of the Kurds did not take place few years ago, as is the case with
> the Serbians of Croatia. It is taking place as we exchange emails, as the
> morally superior NATO bombs everything that moves in Yugoslavia.
> I understand your statement and you are embarrassed and regretful for what
> the Croats did to the Serbs. Is anybody proud of what a NATO member
country
> does to its minority?
> The Kurds would be glad if the morally superior NATO forced one of its
> member state to give them the same rights as the Kosovo Albanians had
> before the bombing.
> Does anybody present Turkey with an ultimatum to sign an agreement to cede
> part of its territory? Of course not. Does anybody argue for the bombing
of
> Ankara? Of course not.
> Will the bombing of Ankara solve the Kurdish problem? Of course not.
> If you feel that NATO is doing the right thing in Yugoslavia, why don't yo
u
> advocate the bombing of Ankara? The human rights violations are far
greater
> in Turkey than in Yugoslavia.
> (Let me just state for the record that I do not advocate the bombing of
> Ankara and, if it were to happen, I would oppose it as I oppose now the
> barbarism that NATO exhibits against Yugoslavia).
> Let me look at the other side and examine the KLA, the organization that
> has been recently promoted as the potential government of Kosovo which
will
> presumably protect human rights and uphold democratic principles.
> Yesterday's Globe and Mail, a leading newspaper in Canada, conservative
and
> avid supporter of the invasion of Yugoslavia had this to say about KLA:
> "þsaid Michael Radu, an analyst at the Foreign Policy Research Institute
in
> Philadelphia. "The KLA is a Marxist organization that supports itself by
> drug trafficking. Are these the sort of people that NATO wants to get into
> bed with?"þ..Western governments are also uncomfortable with the KLA's
> tactics. Since its ascent from obscurity a couple of years ago, KLA
> guerillas have killed Albanians accused of being collaborators,
> assassinated Serb policemen and sometimes forced Serb civilians from their
> homes- the KLA's own version of "ethnic cleansing"" (April 13, p. A10).
> Are these the people that NATO wants to run an independent Kosovo? Is this
> where the moral case of NATO lies? Is NATO now in the business of
> supporting Marxist organizations and aiding them in drug trafficking?
> Somehow, somebody has to explain to the Serbs why is it that when they are
> a minority in another country they either have to be expelled, as in the
> case of Croatia, or be denied the right to secede, as in the case in
> Bosnia. But when there is a minority in their own country, this minority
> must have the right to secede. Is this called racism, stupidity,
> incompetence or high level Mcpolicy?
>  NATO has demonized the Serbs and lifted the KLA to sainthood. The result
> is that even liberal Serbs have turned against the West. Aleksa Djilas, a
> historian and sociologist, son of the famous dissident under Tito, and in
> the recent past visiting scholar at Harvard, has this to say about the way
> the West sees the Serbs.
> "The Serbs are ideal prey now. Not only that they are small and weak, they
> don't have any lobby in the U.S.A. to speak for them. Thus for the
> rightists
> they are still the communists, for the leftists they are the synonym of
> ethnic cleansing. For those who believe that the western civilization is a
> Catholic-protestant civilization, the Serbs are some Balkan Barbarians.
For
> those who hate Russians, the Serbs are the Russians of the Balkan. The
> leading public opinion of the West is that the Serbs should be treated
very
> tough."
> The creation of the mini-states NATO wants to create in the name of
> avoiding ethnic cleansing is in fact the institutionalization of ethnic
> cleansing in its purest form.
> The war is, in my opinion, about the destruction of the International law
> and order and about American hegemony. It is about the invasion of a
> sovereign state however imperfect its human rights record was. It has
> nothing to do with human rights. If Milosevic did not exist the Americans
> would have to invent him to impose their hegemony. They needed a local
> bully to demonstrate to the world who is the boss, Russians included. They
> found him in the name of Milosevic. But if he did not exist, they would
> have created him.
> The Americans are leading us to international anarchy because they took
> upon themselves to police the world. Nobody has assigned this role to
them.
> They completely disregarded the United Nations and they did it because
they
> want to be seen as the only superpower of the world.
> The argument that the UN would not have approved the invasion because of
> the veto power of both Russia and China does not hold at all. The veto is
> there to prevent abuses, as a sort of countervailing power. If the UN had
> to rubber stamp all the decisions the US is taking against the people of
> the world, then it would have been a department of the US Administration
> and not an independent body.
> And I say Americans because I find it hard to believe that the EU would
> like to create and erect new borders while in the meantime working hard to
> eliminate them within its member states. I could be wrong though. And if
> John Gelles thinks that this is anti-Americanism then he should look up to
> the White House to find the anti-Americans. Does anybody believe that an
> American president who has no regard whatsoever for the laws of his own
> country, would give a hoot about international law? Does a liar have the
> moral authority to talk about justice and morality?
> Let me just state that the authoritarianism of American foreign policy is
a
> reflection of its own authoritarianism in domestic policy and in
particular
> its social policy.
> Milosevic is a thug but in the market for thugs he is not alone. He has
> competition from the NATO leaders who are thugs squared and war criminals.
> The other day, Tony Blair announced that he would send troops to Macedonia
> and Greece, as if these two countries are his protectorates and he decides
> when to send troops and how many. He does not even bother with the
> formalities. He did not even bother to go through NATO. He aspires to
> become the Bill Clinton of Europe but in reality he performs very well the
> role of Monica. From now on, we will have a number of the local Monicas
> trying to bully small states to their way of thinking.
> The peoples of Balkans-all of them-the Serbs, the Albanians, Macedonians,
> Greeks, Turks, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Romanians, would suffer the
> consequences of the war for decades to come. In the meantime, the
Americans
> will enjoy their high standard of living by selling arms to the Balkans to
> protect one from another and be looking for the next Balkans to impose
> their order.
> Had NATO countries spent the up to date cost of the war in infrastructure
> projects in the Balkans, they would have made it an ideal place to live
and
> work without anybody cleansing anybody else. The fact that they chose not
> to do so and opted for war reflects their true concerns about human life
> and human rights.
>
> Elias Karagiannis
>
>
>