Re: Kosovo and Hegemony

Peter, we all owe you a great deal of thanks for your interpretation of
Yugoslav history. I have read bits and pieces of the history and feel as
though you integrated the bits and pieces quite nicely.

I assume that your posting is not only for general consumption but that
you also wish to have some feedback.  Not being an historian myself, I
cannot be certain that all of the facts you cite are correct or that you
have included all of the important facts. Nevertheless, let us assume
that they are correct. I would like to offer a few comments on the
implications and conclusions that you draw from them.

Peter Grimes wrote:

>      My conclusion from this brief survey is that all sides are
> equally victims of the "barbarization" process forced upon the
> participants of war.  The value of human life is cheapened for
> all participants, bringing in train both a disgust for and de-
> humanization of the opponent, making it more tempting to engage
> in and easier to "justify" mass killings, rapes, and torture
> visited upon civilian populations affiliated with "enemy" of the
> moment.  Given that this process of barbarization has had
> adequate time to equally poison all sides, their advocates have
> all devolved into moral depravity--the moral equivalent of "mud-
> wrestlers", quick to take tactical advantage whenever available &
> by any means necessary.  Hence there are no "good guys" here--
> only ordinary humans driven by the terror, desperation, and
> barbarism of war into believing that violence is the only
> solution to their pain & oppression (real or imagined).  Those
> who committed the greatest number of atrocities were simply those
> with the best weapons and tightest organization.  To date, that
> group has been the Serbs (Yugoslav Federal Army).

This conclusion toward the end of your second section seems a bit
strong. First, don't you think that the average Yugoslav was more likely
to become "barbaristic" than the average citizen of a NATO country? If
so, the specific history of Yugoslavia involving Milosovic, would
support the conclusion that he (and the Yugoslav media) stirred up the
already relatively high level of ethnic consciousness and, thereby,
increased the probability of barbaristic acts. Had the same kind of
leader and media emerged in the typical NATO country, it seems to me
that they would have been soundly condemned. It seems to me that the
barbarization process was not forced upon the participants of war but
was the consequence of the deliberate stirring up of ethnic tensions by
a Milosovic who wanted a unified nation of Yugoslavia. Milosovic may not
have anticipated the devastation that would ultimately result from this
combination of historical consciousness and his own actions. But it
seems to me that if one is looking for the fundamental forces that
caused the devastation, one ought to put him and the Yugoslav media on
center stage. I am not sure whether it is correct to call Milosovic a
bad guy. But if someone plays such an important role in the destruction
of human values and life, it seems to me that there is just cause to
intervene in an effort to stop him and to try to deter others who might
adopt a similar set of tactics in nations where the consciousness is
vulnerable to the similar kinds of persuasion. It is this belief that
leads me to be unmoved by the fact that China and Russia would have
vetoed an intervention proposal to the U.N.


>      Granted that the media's job during wartime requires them to
> dish out the official party line, supplemented when useful by
> exaggeration and sometimes even fabrication.  However, the
> official propaganda on BOTH sides has strayed so far away from
> the facts on the ground that one is compelled to conclude that
> the war may not be all that it appears.  Which brings me to the
> key points of this overly-long post.

It seems to me that the media in the more developed, democratic
countries with a history of free press is, broadly speaking, far more
sophisticated and diverse than you give it credit for.


>      I believe that the war in/over Kosovo is only the SURFACE
> WAR, the appearance of things, the prolegomena to the real,
> deeper truth.  It is simply a surface phenomenon, a testing
> ground (in a political more importantly than a military sense)
> for what I call the "Shadow War"--which is, ironically, the REAL
> war.

On this basis, it seems to me that you have not laid down a sufficient
foundation for your hypothesis about a shadow war.


>      Instead, I think the answer lies not in economics or racism
> but in geopolitics.  Not only the geopolitical fears just
> sketched out above, but also even larger and deeper concerns.
> Milosovich, like Hussein before him, made a point of OPENLY
> FLAUNTING U.S. HEGEMONY in such a way that the US (& Britain, its
> vicarious co-ruler and self-important subaltern) felt themselves
> BACKED INTO A CORNER where war was the only "face-saving" option.
> Put differently, in order for US military hegemony to be
> sustained, it is occasionally necessary to actually *USE IT,* so
> that those on the receiving end may be made examples of in order
> to intimidate others.  THIS is why the US military was never
> concerned about the human rights abuses in the other non-European
> cases listed: THE PARTICIPANTS NEVER CHALLENGED US AUTHORITY!!!
> Hence the conflicts could simply be ignored.  In Iraq, even the
> pretense of "humanitarian" intervention was never invoked.  It
> was enough that Iraq had flaunted U.S. dominion by invading
> Kuwait (after the U.S. diplomat Glaseby had already given her
> implicit U.S. stamp of approval).  Having already seized Kuwait,
> Hussein was not inclined to back down in the face of U.S.
> complaints & warnings--to have done so would have discredited his
> own rule at home.  Hence he was as unable to retreat as the
> United States was to ignore him.  Just as in the Balkans, both
> sides became backed into corners where war was inevitable.  Once
> again, in both cases one corner was occupied by a leader
> compelled to public challenge U.S. Hegemony over the world.  Such
> challenges *CANNOT* be ignored...

Granted that these leaders flaunted U.S. dominion, they also flaunted
"Western" values or, more correctly, the emergent values of a
civilization ravaged by a total war (WW2) that was started and carried
to vicious ends by insatiable racist nationalist lunatics. These
emergent values are possessed by the voting citizens of the Western
democracies. As a result, these citizens tolerate and even reward
leaders like Clinton and Blair who make decisions in the name of
protecting otherwise helpless people from aggression by racist,
nationalist power and land grabbers. Even though there were many other
violations of these emergent values, Iraq and Yugoslavia appeared
winnable at a reasonable cost. Otherwise, the citizens would not have
tolerated their leaders' recklessness. If the time comes when Yugoslavia
no longer appears winnable, the citizens will reduce their support and
the political leaders will have to change their policy or lose the next
election.

 
>      If EITHER Russia or China had permitted NATO to operate
> against Serbia on the basis of stopping ethnic oppression, then
> they would have been giving implicit permission for the UN to
> authorize sending armed troops inside their OWN BORDERS to stop
> perceived oppression inside Russia or China! On the one hand,
> their concerns are completely understandable--they know full well
> how the monopolized media can instantly whip up popular sentiment
> to endorse military intervention anywhere in the world, and are
> justifiably afraid that that same media could frame ANY internal
> conflict within their respective countries as an egregious
> offense against human rights and "western values."  Yet, on the
> other hand, their fears can be equally correctly construed as the
> wish to retain the right to suppress, torture, rape and "cleanse"
> any of THEIR recalcitrant minorities with impunity.
> 
>      2    Viewed even more broadly, Russia, China, India and misc
> other members of the semiperiphery (each of whom probably harbor
> dreams of THEMSELVES becoming the next hegemonic core) are
> TERRIFIED of a unipolar world with the United States as the sole
> hegemonic power.  This is ALSO a reasonable fear, because such a
> situation could easily evolve into a GLOBAL EMPIRE: GLOBAL
> CAPITALISM INC, where the UN security council would devolve into
> a board of directors with the US as CEO.

The questions of (1) whether global capitalism, as you presumably define
it, would emerge or (2) whether it would be evil aside; an effect of the
bombing that you seem to disregard is the effect on the numerous freedom
fighters in Russia, China, India, and misc. From their point of view,
their nationalist governments and leaders are misguided or evil; hearing
from their leaders and media about an evil NATO that is willing to
flaunt U.N. rules that they believe have helped to repress them is
probably refreshing and encouraging.

 
>      Within this current political atmosphere, both Russia AND
> China would eagerly fight for their autonomy (or at least a
> sovereign piece of the global capitalist surplus), up to and
> including warfare and a nuclear exchange.

Perhaps, but the leaders of these countries cannot but have learned that
NATO has enormous wealth to finance a war and that it has overwhelming
force. It hardly makes sense to commit suicide and cause the destruction
of your country in an effort to right wrongs that you believe are going
on elsewhere but which have not directly affected you. But perhaps these
guys are not rational.


Finally, regarding the hypothesis about the instability of a uni-polar
world, I am not sure one way or the other. However, I would suggest that
your hypothesis disregards the world trading system. It seems to me that
the WTO, EU, APEC, NAFTA, and other similar trading associations provide
strong forces in the direction of world peace. Broadly speaking, Russia
is weak militarily; China is also weak and the Chinese want to get rich
in business; and India is also weak and extremely diverse, with many
Indians also wanting to get rich in business. It seems to me far more
likely that the leaders of these countries will gradually expand their
trade and become part of the world trading system than that they will
join together in a belligerent enterprise against NATO and its likely
allies in such a confrontation.  


Cheers

-- 
Pat Gunning, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises,
Austrian Economics, and my University Classes
http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm