- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon News

You can't negotiate with a war criminal
But a circus tent of NATO opponents, from Tom Hayden to Arianna Huffington, won't face reality.
By Ian Williams
[05/27/99]

Shays calls the GOP's bluff
By trying to force a floor vote on campaign finance reform, Rep. Chris Shays puts his money where his mouth is -- and his career in jeopardy.
By Jake Tapper
[05/27/99]

A visit to "no-man's land"
An endless stream of refugees waits in desperate limbo between Kosovo terror and crowded camps.
By Rob Mank
[05/26/99]

Is sodomy with a stick worse than death?
The outcry over Justin Volpe's abuse of Abner Louima -- compared with comparative silence about decades of police killings -- suggests assaulting someone's manhood is worse than killing him.
By Jill Nelson
[05/26/99]

Friend or foe?
The appropriate U.S. reaction to new allegations of Chinese espionage depends on whether China is an adversary or an ally.
By Joshua Micah Marshall
[05/26/99]

Complete archives for News

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Faced with this morass of failures and a convoluted objective, our leaders reassure themselves that they are fighting a noble war for a great moral purpose. But the moral purpose must be measured now by the immoral results after two months of bombing. In trying to degrade Serbia's military capacity, we have degraded our moral capacity.

You can't negotiate with a war criminal By Ian Williams

The U.S. moral position has been that dead Serbian cleaning ladies and hospital patients are regrettable collateral damage. Worse than that, as the United States becomes more frustrated at the Serbian refusal to surrender, the American moral position is quickly deteriorating to the idea that Serbs as a race should be punished. This new moral belligerence is expressed by Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, who regularly threatens that "we are at war with the Serbian nation and anyone hanging around Belgrade needs to understand that." Further, he bellows like a gang-banger, "You want 1389 [the historic Serbian defeat at Kosovo at the hands of the Turks]? We can do 1389."

Meanwhile, Clinton, Blair and the NATO leadership act like the capricious gods of Greek mythology, basking in the heavens while delivering deadly lightning bolts to the suffering humanity below. NATO has now turned to "area" bombing, which increases the risk of civilian casualties, and is carpeting Kosovo with anti-personnel bombs, whose shards of shrapnel are difficult to remove surgically without amputation. As Friedman -- who might apply for press secretary if Clinton creates an office of policeman of the world -- writes, these Serbs need to be taught a lesson, and punitive bombing is the "cure" for their "nationalist fantasies."

Who is Friedman ranting against? Does he think increasing the amputation rates at Pristina hospital will make the Serbs feel cured of their nationalism? How about the doctors and mothers delivering babies in Belgrade's hospital with the power down? Or those children described in the Los Angeles Times as "suffering epileptic seizures," who "could not be hooked up to electronic monitors that help determine what kind of medication they need."

The most sinister aspect of the U.S. moral position today is described in New York Times headlines as a strategy to "keep the U.S. voters content." The cynicism of this strategy is that Americans somehow won't care if our government drops anti-personnel bombs in our name, if our government blows up hospitals in our name, if tens of thousands of people are killed, maimed, traumatized and displaced in our name, as long as Americans are kept "content" by spin doctors who minimize the news of civilian deaths, sanitize the ground troops as peacekeepers, and hypnotize people into complacency before they can arise from their armchairs and criticize their government.

The strategy for critics of the Balkan war, therefore, must begin by stirring up the very discontent the Clinton administration fears. This requires teach-ins and educational forums that shatter the public silence. It means a complex anti-war alliance between liberal humanitarians who think the civilian suffering is unjustified with conservative isolationists who see no strategic interest in the Balkans. If the war is prolonged, the natural course of protest will be to support political candidates who stand up against the incumbent politicians who allowed this crisis to spin out of control.

The immediate demand of war critics must be for de-escalation as an alternative to ground war by our "peacekeepers." That means a unilateral halt to the counterproductive bombing, which has caused enough damage and suffering, followed by peace talks through the United Nations and third parties to secure a cease-fire and the introduction of an international and genuine peacekeeping force in Kosovo. A partition of Kosovo will be unpopular, but is a lesser evil than cleansing, bombing and refugees. If Northern Ireland can exist with provisions for dual loyalties, so can Kosovo. The Serbs should hold their monasteries and sacred places, and the Kosovars should have a transitional homeland with guarantees of self-determination. Both the United Nations and NATO will be involved in security arrangements. Why will Milosevic accept this? Because it provides honor, dollars and an interim peace with the KLA. The Serbs should be induced with guarantees of rebuilding and investment, and the Russians with the funds that have been suspended by the International Monetary Fund.

Whether the president chooses the path of de-escalation will depend in large part on whether his constituents and allies in Congress remain "content." He is under massive pressure from the hawkish establishment to escalate the war in order to avoid an embarrassing failure. This is exactly the march to folly. The only force that can stop the president from sinking deeper into the quagmire, and thus risking even greater defeat, is an aroused public opinion in America and Europe.

The public cannot count on a Congress that went on vacation as the war began, that abdicates its own war powers responsibilities, a Congress composed of Democrats unwilling to criticize their party leader and Republicans who shun the war but gladly fund it. When our institutions fail, it is reserved for the people at large to activate the democratic process and make it work.
salon.com | May 27, 1999

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

  Get a printer-friendly version

  E-mail a friend about this article

  Backflip this article to find it again

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon