It is extremely easy to demonize certain "enemies" through the use of atrocities management. I became steeped in this subject during the Vietnam War and even published a small volume in 1970 entitled Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities. The marvel of that era was how easily and effectively the U.S. establishment and media focused on the cruel acts and killings of the indigenous National Liberation Front (NLF or "Vietcong") and made them into sinister killers ("terrorists"), when the terror enacted by the U.S. and its local and foreign proxies was in fact far worse. The same process is at work once again with NATO's attacks on Serbia. Only when the government needs atrocities to justify its foreign-policy decisions do atrocities become the subject of press conferences and news reports, with intense focus and indignation. This is done with such assurance and self-righteous virtue that liberals and leftists jump on the bandwagon and welcome the government's gracious willingness in this particular case to finally rain "justice" down on the targeted villain. The ease with which leftists accept the U.S. (and NATO) as proper authorities to decide, judge, and drop bombs is nothing short of astonishing.
One leftist reportedly said that the Serbs are pulling people out of houses and killing them, implying that this justified the NATO bombing. If this kind of reasoning was used consistently, Israel would have been bombed after Sabra-Shatila and on many other occasions, and the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala would have been bombed incessantly in the 1980s, instead of being supplied and protected by the U.S.
Meanwhile, Turkey's scorched-earth policies and killings of Kurds could continue for many years -- unimpeded by any focus on atrocities or any serious attention from the "international community." Turkey could even offer to lend armed support to the NATO effort in Kosovo, presumably diverting troops from killing Kurds, without eliciting the slightest sense of irony in the West.
The left even puts forward spokespersons who openly favor the NATO bombing. Both the Institute for Policy Studies and Mother Jones offer as an "expert" Albert Cevallos of the International Crisis Group, who urges "the use of bombing to bring Serbia back into the peace process," followed by an international peacekeeping army in Kosovo. Mother Jones also provides Doug Hostetter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, who proposes that since Milosevic is carrying out "genocidal acts," the U.S. should seek to bring him before the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal. With sentiments reminiscent of the Vietnam War paralysis, the IPS and Mother Jones leftists oppose the bombing (Cevallos excepted) mainly because it won't achieve purportedly humane goals, whose substantive primacy is taken for granted.
Not one of these experts condemns the U.S. and NATO for tearing Yugoslavia apart, for violating international law with the bombing, and for their political selectivity and gross double-standard in their choice of innocents to be protected from crimes against humanity.
Atrocities management works -- as long as you have a gross misunderstanding of the issues at stake and the context of the actions taken. The Serbs have committed terrible acts in Kosovo and deserve condemnation, so international efforts to end that crisis are eminently desirable. But past NATO policies have contributed to the ongoing violence -- and its bombing strategy is the culmination of policies that have exacerbated the crisis. The bombing is not merely immoral and illegal, it is part of an ugly and destructive policy-sequence rooted in self-serving geo-political strategies.
March 24, 1999
Michael Simmons, director of European Programs, American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker organization for peace and social justice):
The U.S.-led decision to bomb Serbia is the result of a failed policy that should be judged not only by what has been done, but what has not been done. Moreover, the current NATO policy could have negative ramifications on the international community, beyond the continent of Europe.
Article 5 of the NATO charter states that NATO is an alliance that protects the territory of member states when attacked. The bombing by NATO is the first step toward a shift articulated by the Clinton administration that NATO policy should also be to protect the interests of its member states. This allows NATO to become a worldwide police force.
The short-term impact of the bombing will be to strengthen Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. It will drive Serbs who have been opposed to his policy to support him in the name of nationalism and against aggression from an external source. As innocent Serbs die, Milosevic will also have an excuse to silence domestic critics. Moreover, the war is being fought by conventional means and, at best, the bombing will leave the Serbian forces with an army that will still maintain the capacity to assault Kosovo.
Throughout the war in Yugoslavia, the West has undermined the United Nations. Milosevic was allowed to attack the safe havens in Bosnia, kill U.N. officials, and violate U.N. mandates. The bombing of Serbia, another a violation of U.N. mandates, further compromises the U.N. in this and other crises, while allowing Russia to send military support to Serbia. At this point, the policy options are limited.
However, the international community should still seek out anti-war opposition leaders in Serbia, including Montenegro and Vojvodina (the Hungarian section of Serbia). The Serbian delegation to any future peace talks should be as diverse as the Albanian delegation was in France. The international community should also commit to a massive infusion of capital as an incentive to both sides to seek a compromise solution.
Doug Hostetter, international secretary, Fellowship of Reconciliation (an interfaith group dedicated to nonviolence):
As NATO prepares for the bombings of Serbia and Kosovo, I can only think of the terrible waste of material and human resources -- for NATO, Serbia, and Kosovo. We need to learn to use our brains rather than our substantial brawn when dealing with dictators around the world.
Yes, it is clear that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is using the Yugoslav army and Special Police to commit acts of genocide against the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo, just as he did against the ethnic Muslim and Croat majority in Bosnia seven years ago. But the answer is not to kill more innocent people to punish Milosevic for his killing of innocent people.
We oppose NATO air strikes in Kosovo and Serbia. Air strikes will only increase hostilities, further frustrating the possibility of peace in the region. Air strikes also will not necessarily serve the stated goal of protecting civilians, since Kosovars who have been forced from their homes and villages could be further isolated from relief efforts or harmed directly.
The FOR is concerned also for the safety of Serbian soldiers, NATO pilots facing Serb anti-aircraft weapons, and civilians in Kosovo and in Serbia. Bombing will strengthen extremists in Serbia and Kosovo and greatly weaken the forces of moderation in Albanian and Serbian communities in Kosovo, as well as the democratic opposition within Serbia.
It is past time for the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal to deal directly with Milosevic. His arrest would do far more to protect the civilians of Kosovo and to secure lasting peace in the region than air strikes, which will likely be counterproductive.
We urge the U.S. and other nations to encourage the War Crimes Tribunal to immediately indict and issue a warrant for the arrest of Milosevic and all others responsible for the slaughter of Kosovar civilians; to advocate strongly against NATO air strikes; and to pursue other creative, nonviolent, long-term solutions to the crisis.
Albert Cevallos, Balkans Program coordinator for the International Crisis Group (headed by former Senator George Mitchell, ICG is a private group dedicated to preventing and resolving global crises):
With the collapse of the Kosovo peace process, the massive build-up of Serbian forces and heavy weaponry in and around Kosovo, and the evacuation of humanitarian organizations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) monitors -- even as a quarter-million civilians remain displaced -- NATO must begin planning beyond the immediate aerial assault that began Wednesday. This includes the deployment of ground troops in the wake of air strikes.
Indeed, the use of bombing to bring Serbia back into the peace process is acceptable, but only as one step on the road to peace.
Following air strikes, an armed, international ground presence is essential to safeguard civilians: Albanians, Serbs, and international humanitarian-aid workers alike. Deprived of the stabilizing effect of the OSCE verifiers and relief organizations, the possible responses of the warring parties to NATO air strikes will inevitably put both the Albanian majority and the Serb minority in Kosovo at tremendous risk and could lead to a sharp escalation of hostilities. Reprisals from Serbian military and paramilitary forces, as well as counterstrikes by an emboldened Kosovo Liberation Army, will take their toll, as has been the case throughout the last year of conflict, most punishingly on the civilian population.
While NATO bombing cannot protect the civilian population of Kosovo, it will provide the means to a necessary end: the deployment of a protective NATO force even without a peace agreement. NATO should make immediate plans for such a deployment, even if it must take place in a non-permissive environment. Rapid NATO deployment is the critical link to a successful implementation of any peace accord.
Watching the bloodbath in Kosovo that could follow NATO air strikes would be the worst possible way to celebrate the Western alliance's 50th birthday.
Once on the ground, NATO must ensure that the return of Kosovo's displaced goes unhindered and that issues such as justice and human rights are front and center in any reconstruction process. 
More Kosovo Coverage from the MoJo Wire
E-mail the Editors
