A
SHRILL AND WOMANISH RESPONSE
This
comes up because of a
recent New York Times
news article, with the traditional triple-decker Times-style
headline: first on deck was "Bush Would Stop US Peacekeeping
in Balkan Fights"; second was the laconic "Europe to Bear
Burden"; and the third headline, in a burst of verbosity,
declared unequivocally that this was "A Plan for the Most
Important Shift in NATO Duties Since the End of the Cold War"
– thus providing Al Gore with the theme of his own overstated
critique of recent statements by Bush advisor Condolezza Rice.
Gore's
shrill and womanish response – "I can't believe
anyone who understands the importance of NATO could make such
a proposal!" – was typically exaggerated: "I
believe it demonstrates a lack of judgment and a complete
misunderstanding of history to think that America can simply
walk away from security challenges on the European continent,
which is, after all, a core American interest in the world."
If US troops should leave Bosnia and/or Kosovo, it "would
lead to the collapse of NATO and eventually threaten the peace
in Europe," he said. But this addresses a proposal the Bush
camp never made: no one is saying that, in belated recognition
of the end of World War II (not to mention the end of the
cold war), we should bring our troops home from Europe –
no one, that is, but Pat Buchanan and (when asked) Ralph Nader.
What the Bushies are up to is quite different, and has nothing
to do with their sudden conversion to "isolationism" and the
cause of peace: indeed, quite the opposite.
DIVISION
OF LABOR
The
Times piece starts out trumpeting the sensational news
that "If elected president, George W. Bush plans to tell NATO
that the United States should no longer participate in peacekeeping
in the Balkans, signaling a major new division of labor in
the Western alliance, according to Mr. Bush's senior national
security aide." What is this division of labor? Since Bush
supported and continues to support the initial decision to
bomb Yugoslavia, what the Bushian policy comes down to is:
we'll do the bombing and you police the ruins. But it's not
as simple as that. What Ms. Rice has in mind is something
far grander, and far more ominous as far as opponents of US
global meddling are concerned.
BIGGER
FISH TO FRY
In
spite of the rather misleading plethora of headlines that
adorned the Times piece, Rice's statements are the
clearest evidence yet that war is definitely on the Bushian
agenda – just not a war in the Balkans. "The governor
is talking about a new division of labor. The United
States is the only power that can handle a showdown in the
[Persian] gulf, mount the kind of force that is needed to
protect Saudi Arabia and deter a crisis in the Taiwan Straits,"
she said, "and extended peacekeeping detracts from our readiness
for these kinds of global missions." Never mind Kosovo,
the Bushians are saying, we have bigger fish to fry
and we don't need any "distractions." This seems like a pretty
straightforward statement that, if Bush is elected President,
we will soon be at war in the Middle East – more than
likely in another Western crusade against the arch-villain
Saddam Hussein, whom we have made (in the eyes of the Arab
street) into a twenty-first century Saladin.
HOPE
IN VAIN
Nothing
must "distract" the incoming Bush administration from Big
Oil's goal of seizing effective control of Middle East oil
supplies: the
biggest discovery of oil in years (as much as 50 billion
barrels) in the lands bordering the Caspian Sea has Western
corporate and government officials (or do I repeat myself?)
slavering at the mere thought of the profits to be had, provided
an initial taxpayer "investment" is forthcoming. Iraq is the
gateway to the Caucasus, and the breakup of the country as
a unitary state will give the West entry. This has been the
long-term goal of the Clintonian policy in the region, thus
far with little or no success: the Republicans say they can
do better, and, if elected, can be fully expected to go about
proving it. This is one campaign promise that one can only
hope is not kept: unfortunately for the Iraqi people, who
have suffered enough, that hope will probably be in vain.
. . .
ASIA
FIRST AND AMERICA LAST
The
phrase "division of labor" describes exactly what is going
on in this phony debate, although not in the way Rice meant
it – and not the way the Gore camp is spinning it. This
is a bi-partisan division of labor, with the Republicans
calling for an Asia-first policy and the Democrats concentrating
on the rest of the globe: Europe, Africa, Colombia, East Timor,
etc. etc. In the end, by way of a compromise, both
sides win – and we get to intervene everywhere.
Very cozy, and hardly a "conspiracy," at least in the formal
sense – but purely and simply good old American "log-rolling."
THE
SCREECH OF THE WITCH
The
unusual spectacle of the secretary of state engaging in the
kind of partisan one-upmanship one might expect from, say,
James Carville, was underscored by the reported fact that
it was Albright who called the media, and not the other way
around, going out of her way to denounce Bush for even daring
to bring up the subject of our troops in Kosovo: "I am secretary
of state of the United States until noon on Jan. 20, and this
is damaging to American foreign policy," screeched the witch
Albright, explaining why she was bitch-slappin' Ms. Rice so
hard. The Witch made a major point of the upcoming Kosovo
(October 28), Bosnian (November 11) and Serbian elections
(tentatively slated for sometime in December): "Frankly,
to be talking about this right now, when [Yugoslav
President Vojislav] Kostunica is putting together his
new coalition ... I think is truly dangerous," she averred
to one reporter. "Is this the time to be saying we're not
sure we're going to stay there?"
NOW
IS THE TIME
This
is precisely the time to announce that we are for sure
withdrawing all our troops from the Balkans – not just
from Kosovo and Bosnia, but also from Macedonia, Hungary,
and other surrounding countries. For now that Kostunica has
won, the rationale for the US troop presence, the pretense
for the Bosnian occupation and the Kosovo war – Slobodan
Milosevic, the rapacious Hitler of the Balkans – has
evaporated, along with the remnants of Slobo's support. Milosevic,
we were told, was committing "ethnic genocide" and the US-NATO
alliance had to intervene in the name of "humanitarianism."
Now that Slobo is out of power, and may well go on trial in
Serbia for his crimes against his own people, what exactly
is the mission of the US occupation troops? The Serbian
"Hitler" is fallen, although he and his very own Eva Braun
have yet to follow the
example of Slobo's own parents (and an uncle) and share
the
fate of that infamous German couple. Indeed, Slobo and
Mirjana Markovic, his loony wife, are no doubt plotting their
political comeback, and US intransigence may, once again,
be their ally – either witting or unwitting, in the end
the result will be the same.
DISSOLVING
RATIONALE
Kostunica,
a constitutional lawyer who translated The Federalist Papers
into Serbo-Croatian, is the newly-installed President of what
remains of the Yugoslav federation, with more moral and international
stature than any leader of the southern Slavs since Tito.
He's supposed to be our friend – or, at least, one of
the good guys, one of the few in the region. Since Kostunica
is not about to launch a military strike, either against NATO
or any of his neighbors, there is no longer any reason for
the presence of US troops, or any occupation forces,
in the former Yugoslavia. Then, what gives with the Wicked
Witch of the West – has she gotten her broomstick stuck
in an uncomfortable position?
A
PARTISAN AFFAIR
It
is true that Albright's unusual effort to intervene in a US
presidential election is a purely partisan affair, but her
partisanship is on behalf of the Serbian Democratic
Party. For an announcement that US troops were going to get
out would help Kostunica and the best elements within
the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) coalition –
albeit not the most cravenly pro-US and even pro-NATO
parties, such as Zoran
Djindzic's Democratic Party, President Kostunica's chief
rival within the DOS.
YUGOSLAVIA:
THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY DANGER
During
the Yugoslav election campaign, the propaganda of the state-run
Tanjug, Politika, and other organs of the Milosevic
clique relentlessly pushed home a single point, simple to
the point of crudeness: that Kostunica was the candidate of
NATO, and if he won US troops would soon be marching through
the streets of Belgrade, celebrating their triumph without
a shot having been fired: Yugoslavia would be occupied territory,
they said, just like Kosovo. As an election strategy, it worked
pretty well – I mean, here is a man who presided over
the virtual destruction of his country, not only economically
and militarily but also geographically – and in every
other possible sense you care to name – and who still
managed to garner some 30-plus percent of the vote. Kostunica,
for his part, campaigned against the twin evils of Slobo and
NATO, pointing out to his countrymen that the former had to
be disposed of before they could effectively stand up to the
latter. Implicit in his pledge to make Yugoslavia a "normal"
nation again was the promise that the West would back off,
militarily, as well as lift economic sanctions. US failure
to do so will endanger Kostunica's power – that
is what is "dangerous" about recent events in Yugoslavia,
and not the modest proposals advanced by Ms. Rice.
TRIPPING
KOSTUNICA
Having
taken credit for the Serbian revolution against Slobo, and
placed themselves at the head of the democratic opposition
in place of Kostunica, Western heads of state are now doing
their best to undermine the new President. By insisting on
the authority of the Hague Tribunal to try Milosevic –
and make of him a martyr instead of a pathetic failure –
sponsoring Djindic, and failing to disavow the recent statement
by occupation overlord Bernard Kouchner that the UN administration
of Kosovo must go on for
another 20 years, the Clinton administration has done
everything in its power to place obstacles in Kostunica's
path, but he has jumped every hurdle with impressive speed
and grace. Yet the effort to trip him up is far from over:
. . .
GOVERNED
BY MADMEN
Milosevic
and his cronies are laying low, for the moment, but they will
spring back into action if and when the opportunity presents
itself – the desire for revenge being the one universal
Balkan sensibility, the cultural and historical leitmotif
that gives the whole region its essential flavor. Disaffection
with Kostunica will benefit only two groups – the remnants
of the old regime and US protégé Zoran Djindic,
who can then assume primacy within the DOS. Without the US
presence, the Slobo-ists would be without a bogeyman and Djindic
would be without a sugar daddy and protector. In this context,
Mad Madeleine's raving reaction to Rice's rather mild statements
makes perfect sense – that is, if you look at US policy
in the Balkans as governed by madmen intent on plunging the
region into a roiling maelstrom of perpetual war.
A
LOVER'S QUARREL
The
alleged differences between Bush and Gore on the Balkan issue
are being vastly overblown. Even Mad Maddy agrees that, as
far as our troops in Kosovo and Bosnia are concerned, "I don't
think they should be there any longer than they have to be."
Both Gore and Bush announced their fulsome support for the
immediate cause of the US troop presence – US military
aggression against a sovereign country that never attacked
us. During the second debate, Gore acknowledged some limits
to the US commitment: "I certainly don't disagree that we
ought to get our troops home from places like the Balkans
as soon as we can, as soon as the mission is complete": his
only real disagreement with Rice's proposal being the timing
of it. There is no disagreement between the Bush and Gore
camps on the general principle that ought to operate in the
realm of foreign policy: their point of difference is only
over the application of that principle, which is the
necessity and desirability of the US as the builder of a global
empire. Gore and Albright think that the Balkan mission, far
from being completed, has just begun: the Bushies want to
move on to other, more lucrative missions. This is not a policy
dispute but more like a lover's quarrel, with the two architects
of our bipartisan foreign policy merely quibbling over symbolic
but largely meaningless details.
OCTOBER
SURPRISE?
Dubya
is no doubt eager to settle accounts with his father's old
enemy – unless, of course, Clinton beats him to the punch.
Although as of this writing it's only fourteen days until
the election, two weeks can be more like two years in an election
year – and it isn't over yet. This President, who called
down the wrath of the US military machine on a Sudanese aspirin
factory for his own political advantage, is capable of anything.
But of one thing we can be sure.
A CHOICE
OF EXECUTIONERS
We
are headed for war no matter which one of the two major party
candidates makes it to the White House. The extent of our
"choice" is this: with Gore, we can have several separate
wars for ostensibly righteous aims: Colombia (the "war on
drugs"), the Balkans (a war against hate-thoughts), East Timor,
West Timor, Uganda, etc. etc. Or we can have one
big war, one big power grab made for purely mercenary
reasons. Would you rather fritter away US power in a series
of relatively small but nonetheless serious military interventions
around the world, or would you rather focus the power and
might of the US military machine in an effort to pull off
a major conquest: the virtual conquest of Asia? Both are roads
to defeat and decline, the result of the imperial pretensions
and incredible hubris of Western elites.
WEIGHED
ON THE SCALES OF JUSTICE
The
illusion that Bush is in any way more supportive of
non-interventionism, in principle or in practice, is a dangerous
one. If anything, the Bushian foreign policy agenda is far
more ominous than the slow dribbling away of US power and
influence that will be the end result of a Gore presidency,
for it contains within it the possibility of a really major
war involving many casualties: weighed on this moral scale,
a vote for Bush bears with it a potentially far greater
burden of guilt than does a vote for his principal opponent.
The first principle, therefore, of a noninterventionist strategy
in the voting booth must be to defeat Dubya. The second heaviest
burden of guilt, of course, will fall on those who vote for
Gore: I will leave it to theologians to decide just how much
lighter their burden will be. Perhaps the task can be
assigned to those learned scholars who determined how many
angels could dance on the head of a pin.
SEND
THE ELITES A MESSAGE
Clearly,
non-interventionists have only two major choices for President,
this year: Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. To vote for either
of the major-major candidates is to collaborate with
one or the other wing of the War Party: to vote for any of
the minor-minor candidates, such as Howard Phillips
(of the Constitution Party) or Dave McReynolds (of the Socialist
Party), is to truly throw your vote away. This would split
up the protest vote, and, by implication, the antiwar vote,
and allow the War Party to claim that no real opposition to
their policies exists. The only way to register an
effective protest is not by staying away from the polls –
abstention is just what the War Party recommends for all
antiwar voters, for obvious reasons – but to vote
for one of the major-minor candidates, either Buchanan or
Nader. That way, your vote will not only count, but it will
be noticed in a race which every observer predicts
is going to be very close. A healthy vote total for each of
these major protest candidates, coming from both the left
and the right, will send our elites a clear message: Yes,
this many people are completely alienated from the
two parties, and your system faces a real crisis. Either open
up the electoral process, or else face what Milosevic and
his cronies had to face: a loss of legitimacy and the prospect
of mass rebellion.
|
