Re: Kosovo paradigms

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Kevin J. West wrote:

> Some discussants on the Kosovo crisis have tried to link the NATO action
> to a larger, Western geopolitical agenda of expanding political and
> economic hegemony.  Making this link has generally involved the
> torturing of reason.  For example, though the violent conflict that has


It is true that some particular versions seem to be nothing more than
cobbled together conspiracy theories.  But as opposed to the below
argument (knee-jerk anti-imperialism), it seems clear to me that the
overwhelming tendency is knee-jerk "taking humanitarianism at face value."

It does not require any conspiratorial attitude or slavish adherence to
leftist doctrine to see, based on the historical record, that great powers
act in great powers' interests, not on behalf of suffering humanity.
This should be the operating assumption until proven otherwise, not the
reverse.


Richard Hutchinson





> all the ear-markings of a disaster politically and economically for the
> US and it’s Western Allies, some would have us believe that this is a
> part of a “rational” plan for political and capital expansion. Other’s,
> like Edward Said, apparently believe the NATO countries are acting
> “irrationally” to show the world just how crazy they can get in order to
> defend their hegemony. These are interesting comments. But they ignore
> certain facts (e.g., the pre-capitalist roots of the conflict, or some
> of the “big business” Republican opposition to US involvement to name
> two.)
> 
> It may be interesting to some to do a kind of motivational psychology of
> whole governments, (or even whole regions of the world like “the West.”)
> but I prefer to examine the motivational politics a little closer to
> home. Example:  take an academically minded “progressive”
> political-economist or sociologist.  To be thought of as smart and
> having something worthwhile to say, he must create and maintain an image
> as a progressive social critic.   This is part of his personal identity,
> and how he will make his living.  He, more than most, has an interest in
> putting forth a “critical analysis” of the current crisis Kosovo. The
> critical lens he overlays upon the crisis is, in fact, a mish-mash
> paradigm of neo-Marxist and world systems theory.  The resulting
> "explanation" of the crisis is predictable.  Though he makes objections
> against about Milosovec’s actions, he reserves serious moral
> condemnation for Western capitalism and the regimes that support it.
> (Perhaps, in his mind, the only war worth fighting is the revolution
> against capitalism.) Thus, anti-Western capitalism provides both a ready
> explanation and ready  way out.
> 
> This kind of reminds me of the way I used to think in my left days.
> When people talked to me about Stalin's atrocities, I would attribute it
> to Western propaganda, and the western encouragement of  simple-minded
> and aggressive ethnic nationalism in the USSR that the CCCP was forced
> to dealt with.  Thus, Uncle Joe had been forced to fighting some
> internal battles, so I reasoned.   I couldn't see the forest for the
> trees.
> 
> Call me Pollyanna now.  Sometimes politicians actually do things because
> they believe them to be the right thing to do.  And often, the things
> they do work at cross-purposes, and this is because there is no long
> range master plan for global domination. I know this doesn’t fit well
> within some of the grander political-economic theories.  But maybe it’s
> time to question the individual’s motivation behind making reality fit
> the model.
> 
> 
>