Kosovo--Between Milosevic and NATO:

THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF STEVE SHALOM'S "Reflections on NATO and Kosovo,"as I understand it, is the utter betrayal of principle by the left -- fractured on the one side, by an obscene pantomime of anti-imperialist politics, in support of Milosevic and his thugs; while aligned on the other, in defiance of all experience rooted in historical reality, with NATO out of solidarity with the beleaguered Kosovars. He poses the question bluntly, demanding, in effect, to know what politics this war is a continuation of and concludes that this "humanitarian intervention" has "nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with asserting US power, with maintaining US and NATO credibility, with creating a military instrument that Washington can use in Europe and beyond, free from UN restraint." We read along the same lines later that the ends of "legitimating US power unrestrained by law or the UN worsen(s) the prospects for Kurds and Timorese and so many other of the world's victims" and deftly pierces the pretexts behind which the administration selectively exploits human rights abuses as a "built in rationale for intervening whenever and wherever it want[s]."

The misgivings I have with this approach run along two lines. Steve's explanation for this war fails to descend from the stratosphere to embrace the facts on the ground. One cannot answer the questions as to why this war and why now by airily counterposing an abstract American predilection for unilateralism over diplomacy. This false polarity understates the degree to which America acts as the general representative of capitalist interests when it acts unilaterally and understates the degree to which it dominates the very institutions it contritely "submits" to when seeking its ends through international platforms. One should instead look to the roots of this war in the desire of the West to contain the chaos, wrought in the wake of Stalinist decay, of national and ethnic reconfiguration in Eastern Europe until market relations take seed and knit together both ends of Europe into a unified economic field.

Which brings me to the second and more serious reservation I have with his approach. In his attempt to discredit the American case for intervention, Steve scrupulously avoids declaring his unequivocal support of the oppressed Kosovars, lest valuable ground be thereby conceded to NATO's anti-genocidal rationale for intervention. This lends his approach an unintended air of insensitivity. Logic chopping about the legal and moral definition of genocide misses the point. The confusion of the left interventionists cannot merely be dispelled by exposing the definitional mischaracterization of Kosovar suffering. Let us simply conclude that it is a national pogrom, the result of a two-pronged assault on the national aspirations of the Kosovars: Milosevic's war to preserve a greater Serbia and NATO's "humanitarian" intervention, which merely seeks the perpetuation of that oppression under less onerous, provocative and disruptive arrangements. The answer to the left interventionists can only be found in an alternative explanation of the war and the politics which flow from that analysis.

In defiance of both these assaults, socialists and consistent democrats have the fundamental obligation to declare our forthright solidarity with the Kosovar victims. With respect to the first war, Kosovar is an ethnic colony of Serbia, which in its overwhelming majority, no longer wishes to continue enjoying the benefits of that dubious relationship. Their secessionist impulses, including the rise of an armed resistance movement -- the KLA,are the inevitable product of conditions imposed on the Kosovars by Milosevic. While no fans of small states, socialists cannot but champion the right of the Kosovar resistance to arm itself by any means available and with no strings attached in pursuit of its democratic right to self-determination. This is the approach that revolutionary socialists have always taken with respect to colonial revolts and one would be hard pressed to conjure a compelling reason to depart from that now.

We must further warn the Kosovars against reliance on NATO. The US and NATO never had any commitment to Kosovar independence. In this principle, Belgrade and the Western alliance are in total agreement. The problem was in the details. No Serbian nationalist leader could "willingly" accept the presence of foreign troops (as proposed in Rambouillet) on sacred "Serbian" soil. The bombing of Belgrade is aimed at the imposition of a diktat and -- however understandable the refugee belief in the beneficence of NATO -- was never intended to advance the cause of Kosovar self-determination.That is why Clinton reassured the Serbian regime that "the NATO allies support the Serbian people to maintain Kosovo as part of your country."The NATO expedition was designed not to vanquish Milosevic, but to bring him to his senses and thereby salvage him as a regional junior partner. That this strategy has become a complete disaster for Clinton is beside the point. Serbian interests were never threatened by American war aims.The US's concern is solely with Balkan stability and the path to that is over the corpse of Kosovo. That is also why NATO does not want the Kosovars to become a power able to insist on their own independence and why they are so adamant about not "arming" the refugees, an attitude utterly consistent with their prior demand in Rambouillet that the KLA disarm. The presence, afterall, of armed refugees would be destabilizing to the integrity of the states in the region and would establish an unwanted beacon of inspiration for the oppressed throughout Eastern Europe. These concerns are understandably important to capitalism which has been less than stunningly successful in reconciling national minorities on a consistently democratic basis; a tad less, I think, for socialists who champion the cause of national equality as a step towards relaxing national animosities, building mutual confidences and preparing for a future socialist federation based on national equality.

And that is the point. Opposition to NATO involvement must stem from the fact that it is an impediment to the realization of democratic rights in the region whenever and wherever those rights come into conflict with capitalist interests. It is for that reason as well that we cannot call for nor have confidence in either NATO or any NATO policy in which bombings or troop landings are a part. For the likely outcome of any such involvement will be at best a miserable swindle for Kosovo and most likely its partition into a rump Bantustan. Steve therefore only creates a strawman by his discussion of arming the KLA in conjunction with NATO air attacks. American purposes can only be served by keeping the Kosovars in a state of perpetual military and political dependency incompatible with this hypothetical perspective. Only such a Kosovo can be delivered, subjugated and policed by a compliant Serbian overlordship. Why, given Washington's perspective would they agree to arm the Kosovars? The left must demand, on the contrary, that any arms embargoes directed against the Kosovars be lifted precisely so that they may arm themselves and break the stranglehold which both Serbia and NATO exercises over their aspirations. Otherwise Kosovar independence will disintegrate into a wholly owned subsidiary of Western imperialism, reserved as an occasional irritant to keep Serbia in line.

Worse still, however, is the argument proscribing socialist endorsement of the KLA on democratic grounds, since it is "an organization lacking a clear commitment to ethnic tolerance." The Kosovars are under a state of siege. It is highly unlikely that a plenum can be held so that the KLA can properly and thoroughly thrash out its political principles on the national question and it would be foolish of socialists to demand that they do so. Would any serious socialist withhold support from Cuba, in the teeth of an imminent US occupation -- unless they allowed, say -- an opposition press? What we have every right to demand of the Kosovars, as of the Palestinian "rejection front", or the Kurdish Workers' Party in "normal" times, we have no right to demand under circumstances of impending and immediate disaster. Is it really so difficult to understand why the Kosovars, at this moment, may not be in a reconciliatory mood given the deplorable role so many of their Serbian neighbors have played as murderous adjuncts to the Serbian death squads?

The Kosovars are urged instead to rely on diplomacy. Although the likely outcome, it is conceded, is a "miserable" prospect for the Kosovars, any limited success for diplomacy, it is implied, would be welcomed as a substitute for American unilateralism. But this again misstates the issue. Such "victory" for diplomacy as Steve envisions -- by two sides joined in fundamental agreement over their opposition to the principle of self-determination -- is also and at the same time an utter defeat for democratic principle. It signals the oppressed throughout Eastern Europe that they are isolated and powerless, without recourse to national redress of grievances and utterly at the mercy of local overlords in good stead with American imperialism.

The left can and must demand that NATO cease its bombing in conjunction with the Serbian military and paramilitary operations in Kosovo. But while the peace movement can pressure the former only the Kosovar resistance can enforce the latter. Lack of clarity on this can only lead to a retreat from socialist responsibility . For it is our obligation to fight American imperialism by supporting the democratic struggle of the Kosovars. The NATO alliance is desperate for a diplomatic solution to a quagmire, which in its blind arrogance, it failed to anticipate. Stopping the bombing without demanding arms to the Kosovar resistance is a blood warrant. Clearly Steve's perspective is decidedly agnostic on this point which weakens his perspective and renders a consistently socialist opposition to this war impossible. Negotiations may, alas, be the only immediate resort for the Kosovars as Steve seems to aver, but in the end, diplomacy merely provides the janitorial services of imperialism, mopping the mess left by Milosevic and by NATO interventionism. It may offer the Kosovars a chance to return to their homeland, to regroup and to begin their struggle anew. For that we must be hopeful. And if it comes to pass we may accept it as a concession to a hideous and seemingly intractable reality, but never, as Steve's article invariably directs, as a profession of faith in the lesser evilism of international diplomatic institutions under capitalism.

Contents of No. 27

Kosovo/a Discussion