 | | The Kosovo conflict is not an easy issue to come to grips with. Most progressives agree that while the United States shouldn't become the world's police force, neither should it sit idly by and let another Rwanda occur. |
But where should the line be drawn between action and inaction, and how did we get ourselves -- not to mention the Kosovar Albanians and Serbs -- into this situation?
To help answer these questions, the MoJo Wire has invited a number of intellectuals and policy experts to discuss the Kosovo crisis. Over the next few days, we will be posting their thoughts online. Shortly thereafter, we will open up the forum so that you, our readers, can debate the subjects yourselves.
The Players:
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., and the author of Calling the Shots : How Washington Dominates Today's U.N.
Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of several books, notably Blood Rites, a widely praised work on the origins of war. She is also a frequent contributor to several magazines, including Time and The Nation.
Diana Johnstone is the former Green Party spokeswoman in the European Parliament and a contributing editor at In These Times.
George Kenney writes on foreign affairs from Washington and is a former State Department undersecretary in charge of the Yugoslav desk. He resigned from the State Department in 1992 to protest the Bush administration's policy in the former Yugoslavia.
Howard Zinn is professor emeritus of political science at Boston University and author of numerous books, including A People's History of the United States.
The forum will be hosted by Mat Honan. New questions will be posted throughout the week.
First question:
Tactics aside, was it right for NATO to intervene in the Kosovo conflict? In other words, is this mission a moral imperative? Did NATO have any options left, besides the use of force?
Responses:
(click on the person's name to see their full response)
Phyllis Bennis:
The question begs the answer. I think there may well have been (and still is) a moral imperative to intervene -- but NOT for NATO!
Barbara Ehrenreich:
Some of my friends point out that the U.S. and international bodies calmly sat out genocide in Rwanda and against the Kurds in Turkey, as if this were a reason for not doing anything this time around. I don't follow that logic.
Diana Johnstone:
The assumption underlying the question is that Kosovo was NATO's problem; that NATO had to do SOMETHING about Kosovo. This assumption is totally false and far-fetched
George Kenney:
Moral imperatives cannot, by definition, apply only to specific circumstances. To date I have not seen, nor can I imagine, an argument for a moral imperative in Kosovo that would not apply even more aptly to at least half a dozen other conflicts around the world.
Howard Zinn:
Where people are suffering, there is a moral imperative to act. But how one acts is crucial, because there are interventions that make things worse.
George Kenney responds:
The situation in Kosovo prior to the bombing didn't call for humanitarian relief above the norm. The refugees do now, thanks to NATO.
Second question:
As most of you pointed out in the first round, the U.S. routinely sits by and does nothing while other nations act nastily toward their own people. And when the West does get involved -- as in the Balkans in the early and mid-1990s -- it frequently makes matters worse.
So what should the role of the United States be? Does the U.S. have a duty to intervene in the affairs of other nations when human rights are at stake? If so, at what point and how?
Responses:
(click on the person's name to see their full response)
Phyllis Bennis:
While the U.S. has a particular responsibility -- because of its power in the world -- to respond to massive human-rights abuses or genocide, it also has the responsibility NOT to act alone in figuring out its response.
Barbara Ehrenreich:
SOMEONE has a responsibility to intervene in situations like the Balkans, Rwanda, etc. I am no big respecter of "national sovereignty" when the sovereign nation in question gets involved in ethnic cleansing, ethnic removal, or genocide.
Diana Johnstone:
The intervention of the United States in the Balkans has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with moral dilemmas. It is power politics on a scale we have not seen since World War II.
George Kenney:
To generalize from recent history, it seems that relief to complex emergencies has occurred in failed states or portions of states where state structures broke down. Kosovo is a significant departure -- the first instance of forced humanitarian relief in a complex emergency to an intact, sovereign state that does not want to receive it.
Howard Zinn:
National boundaries should not be a protective shield around violations of human rights inside those boundaries. There is indeed a moral imperative to intervene. The real questions are: ho shall undertake it, and what kind of intervention will it be?
George Kenney responds:
So far as I am aware, I am the only person to write critically on the conventional wisdom that says 250,000 to 300,000 were killed in the Bosnian war. ... Do these numbers matter? You bet!
More Kosovo Coverage from the MoJo Wire E-mail the Editors
