THE WESTERN LEFT AND THE BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA

from RedNet News (http://www.rednet.org)
News and Views from the Communist Press

>From Communist Party of India (Marxist), 5/06/99 08:25:53


THE WESTERN LEFT AND THE BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA 

There have no doubt been demonstrations against the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia in most advanced capitalist countries. There have also been
significant voices of protest from the Left: from Tony Benn in Britain, a
sizeable section of the Greens and even Social Democrats in Germany, and
from the Communist Parties. The protest has been particularly strong in
countries close to Yugoslavia, such as Greece and Italy. Yet,
notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that the opposition from the
Left in Europe and the U.S. to the bombing of Yugoslavia has been rather
muted; and such opposition as exists has more often been based on
arguments which are themselves rather disturbing. 

The muted opposition from the Left is undeniable. After all, in most of
Europe, at the moment, forces owing allegiance to the Left are a part of 
the 
ruling governments. I am not talking about the hardcore Social Democrats or 
counting Tony Blair, Robin Cook or Gerhard Schroeder as part of the Left; 
but 
within the Social Democratic Parties in each of these countries there are 
undoubtedly significant sections who would count as Left, and  who, by 
implication, are also a part of the ruling governments. But these are the 
very governments which are participating in the bombing. Even the German 
Greens 
who were committed pacifists a few years ago are now supporters of NATO 
bombing; 
the group within the Greens that opposed bombing was easily defeated at the 
Party convention recently. 

The reasons for this muted opposition are many. But one of these no doubt
is the perception quite widely shared in European Left circles that the 
Yugoslav 
government was guilty of "ethnic cleansing" (a euphemism for genocide) 
against 
the Kosovars, that it is a "fascist" government, and that when the conflict 
is 
between "fascism" and imperialism, the Left has to willy-nilly support 
imperialism. Indeed many of those opposing the bombing of Yugoslavia do 
so not because they are opposed to imperialist intervention per se but 
because 
they feel that this bombing only strengthens "fascism" both by making the 
plight 
of the Kosovars even more pitiable and by rallying popular support within
Yugoslavia behind the "fascist regime". 

This argument is so completely wrong that the immediate temptation is to 
ignore 
it. But wrong arguments, if ignored, only come back to haunt us later. It  
is 
necessary therefore to take explicit note of it and to confront it, which 
is 
what I propose to do. 

This argument is wrong on at least three counts. First, it is wrong 
empirically. 
It presumes that the developments in Yugoslavia prior to the bombing had 
nothing 
to do with imperialism, that a "fascist" regime happened to come along and 
start 
"ethnic cleansing", and that imperialism only entered the picture at that 
stage 
and was confronted with the question of what to do.  Nothing could be 
further from 
the truth. Yugoslavia not very long ago was a  single country encompassing 
not 
only Serbia and Montenegro (as it does today) but also Croatia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovena, Macedonia, and Slovenia. It was a founding member of the 
non-aligned movement, an important and respected member of the comity of 
nations, 
and a "model of socialism" according to some of the very people who are 
currently 
engaged in bombing what remains of it.  It had evolved a federal structure 
that 
had successfully and peacefully held together the diverse Balkan 
nationalities 
for over four decades.  True, there was always an undercurrent of tension 
among 
the nationalities but the reason for the break-up of Yugoslavia was not 
this 
tension as such; it was the exploitation of this tension by German 
imperialism. 
Under the policy of "economic liberalization" several of the federating 
units of
Yugoslavia vied with one another to attract German capital by getting on
to the bandwagon of German imperialism, and the latter gave every 
encouragement 
to these units to break away from the federation. Prompt European Community 
recognition was accorded, under German pressure, to whoever broke away from 
Yugoslavia, and, not surprisingly, the richest of the units, Slovenia and
Croatia, were the first to break away. German inperialism therefore was to
a very large extent responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia. 

But that was not all. Even in the truncated Yugoslavia which remained,
imperialism aided and abetted the Kosovo Liberation Army which was fighting 
for 
the secession of Kosovo. It is a tragic fact that wars of secession are 
always 
bloody; the protagonists on either side perpetrate acts which can be 
labelled as 
"ethnic cleansing". Any political power that is genuinely interested in 
avoiding
"ethnic cleansing" by one or the other group in a multi-ethnic country,
should take special care therefore that disputes among the ethnic groups 
are 
settled politically with a spirit of accommodation, rather than encouraging 
secession by a particular group. Yet this is what imperialism has done
vis-a-vis Yugoslavia right from the beginning. Having connived at the
break-up of the country and let loose ethnic strife in the region, 
imperialism 
now appears in saintly robes to prevent "ethnic cleansing"! 

The second count on which the argument one comes across within the
European Left is wrong has in fact to do with morality. Let us for a moment 
assume that the Yugoslav regime is "fascist" and has to be restrained. What 
was 
there to prevent the imperialist countries from approaching the United
Nations? What gave them the right to arrogate to themselves the role which
the countries of the world had collectively given to the United nations? 
And even 
today if their real objective is to safeguard the rights of the Kosovars, 
to 
ensure the return of the refugees, and to establish peace and
respect for human rights in the region, then what prevents them from
agreeing to the Yugoslav proposal of a U.N. peace-keeping force? Why must 
heavily-armed NATO troops be stationed in Kosovo, enjoying all the rights 
of 
"extra-territoriality" if the object is merely the noble and lofty one
of preventing "ethnic cleansing"? 

Indeed the NATO summit held to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
organization let the cat out of the bag. NATO has now formally emerged as 
an 
expansionist alliance which would not hesitate to use force in any part of 
the 
world, by-passing the United Nations. It would do so not only if
Western interests are threatened or perceived to be threatened, but also
for preventing "human rights abuses" and "promoting economic reforms"! 
Imperialism in other words has bared its fangs. To pretend, as sections of 
the 
European Left do, that this act has been stimulated by moral concerns on 
its part 
is the height of immorality. 

The third count on which the argument encountered within the European Left
is wrong is analytical: it relates to the definition of "fascism". The 
third 
world is dotted with repressive regimes: it is a symptom of 
underdevelopment. The 
third world is plagued with social instability, with ethnic strife,
with secessionist movements, and, in the context of all these, with acts
of extreme repression, not perpetrated unilaterally but on one another by 
warring 
groups: this too is a symptom of underdevelopment which becomes 
particularly 
noticeable when "liberal economic policies" are being pursued. To call any 
regime 
which one perceives to be repressive "fascist" is both dangerous and
analytically wrong. It is dangerous because in such a case, on the
principle that one has to willy-nilly support imperialism against fascism, 
one 
would end up supporting imperialist intervention against every such third 
world 
regime. One would in other words end up becoming an apologist for the
obnoxious "white man's burden" argument to justify the re-imposition of
colonialism. 

But this danger arises because of an analytical mistake. To call any
repressive regime "fasicst" is to adopt a humanist as opposed to a Marxist 
definition of fascism. Fascism according to the Marxist approach has to be 
defined in class terms, not in moral terms. Classical fascism was defined 
by the
Seventh Congress of the Communist International not in terms of the
persecution of the Jews and the concentration camps, all of which of course 
were 
the horrendous symptoms of it, but as "the open terrorist dictatorship of 
the 
most reactionary sections of finance capital". This definition, precisely
because it is not humanist but approaches the issue in class terms,
emphasizes the link between imperialism and fascism. German fascism was in 
fact a 
part and parcel of German imperialism. The war between Britain and Germany 
was a 
war between liberal imperialism and fascist imperialism, in which the Left 
was on 
the side of liberal imperialism. To use that example to justify support for
NATO against the so-called "fascist" Yugoslav regime is to use a false
analogy, false because it dissociates fascism from imperialism. 

But then the question may be asked: if fascism is a part and parcel of
imperialism, then how can we ever characterize any third world regime as 
"fascist", since such a regime after all belongs not to an
imperialist country but only to a third world country? If the matter is
looked at in class terms, however, then an important criterion for a third 
world 
regime to qualify as fascist would be its relationship with imperialism, 
not its 
own imperialism but that of the imperialist countries. In short,
humanist definitions do not take us very far and can be quite dangerous
when it comes to taking positions on crucial political issues. The point of 
departure must be class analysis, which unfortunately significant sections 
of the 
European Left have abandoned. 

It is for this reason that they have ended up swallowing the moral
argument which imperialism has advanced to cover up its grand design of 
re-colonializing the world. And it is for this reason that they
actually exhibit moral righteousness in lining up behind the aggressive
actions of imperialism. One can only hope however that the defeat of NATO's 
plans 
would drum some dialectics back into their heads. 

Kartik Rai