Confused positions of many anti-war protesters fall short

Protests against u.s. bombings of Yugoslavia reveal confusion among the
people in the u.s. about what is really going on and what position is
really correct. Over the past few weeks MIM has attended a number of
demonstrations against u.s. bombing Yugoslavia. There are a number of
positions represented at these rallies, none of which takes on imperialism
in a thoroughgoing and correct way.

Pro-imperialist reformists

First there are the people at the rallies who oppose the u.s. bombings but
believe that u.$./NATO intervention in a less overtly violent way is
necessary and even progressive. These people correctly point out the
hypocrisy of the bombings which never gave a peaceful settlement of the
conflict a fair chance. But what these people fail to recognize is that it
is capitalism that created the situation in the Balkans in the first
place. Imperialist intervention is not going to solve these problems and
leave the people with an opportunity for national self-determination.
Those who believe that the u.$./NATO could act entirely in humanitarian
interests need to study history a little further to understand that this
is not possible. 

As Noam Chomsky wrote in a document entitled "The Current Bombings"
released recently: "We may also bear in mind a truism:  the right of
humanitarian intervention, if it exists, is premised on the 'good faith'
of those intervening, and that assumption is based not on their rhetoric
but on their record, in particular their record of adherence to the
principles of international law, World Court decisions, and so on...
Consider, for example, Iranian offers to intervene in Bosnia to prevent
massacres at a time when the West would not do so. These were dismissed
with ridicule (in fact, ignored); if there was a reason beyond
subordination to power, it was because Iranian 'good faith' could not be
assumed. A rational person then asks obvious questions:  is the Iranian
record of intervention and terror worse than that of the US? And other
questions, for example: How should we assess the 'good faith' of the only
country to have vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states
to obey international law? What about its historical record? Unless such
questions are prominent on the agenda of discourse, an honest person will
dismiss it as mere allegiance to doctrine."

"Radical" apologists for the Serbian bourgeoisie

Another group protesting u.s. bombing of Yugoslavia claims that we must
support Milosevic and the Serbian government, even to the extent of
upholding their military actions in Kosovo. For example, Gary Wilson of
the International Action Center (which is led by the Trotskyist Workers'
World Party) wrote, "The Yugoslav government's policy of defending its own
country from attack, both internal and external, cannot be characterized
as different from what any other government in the world would do under
similar circumstances. A civil war, abetted from abroad, has broken out in
Kosovo. As in any civil war there have been casualties, some of them
involving innocent people. War is terrible, but it is not genocide."(1)

Yes, there is evidence that NATO powers have played a role in arming
certain factions among the Kosovar Albanians - but that does not negate
the right of the people of Kosovo to pursue self-determination, nor does
it excuse Serbian attempts to violently suppress those who wish to
exercise that right. 

Some foolish people even go so far as to say that this situation is just
like Viet Nam. These people put forward the ridiculous claim that
Milosevic is actually ruling in the interests of the Yugoslavian people
and that any claims to the contrary are just imperialist lies.

But Milosevic does not deserve our support in the same way that the
National Liberation Front in Viet Nam deserved anti-imperialist support.
For starters, Milosevic has a proven track-record of inciting chauvinism
for political benefit and in fact received u.s. aid when he first came to
power (see "Kosovo's Albanian pacifist president apparently denounces
NATO," in this issue). 

As MIM has written repeatedly, the current civil war in Yugoslavia and the
recent wars in the Balkans are all examples of wars of oppressed and
exploited people against other oppressed and exploited people. They cannot
be justified by any rationale communists consider important. Gary Wilson
and other of his ilk get lost in bourgeois legalisms about sovereignty and
end up picking sides in an essentially bourgeois conflict - which serves
no purpose other than to confuse and mislead anti-imperialists.

Serbian bourgeois nationalists

Alongside these activists are a number of Serb nationals within u.s.
borders, many of whom appeal to Amerika to see Serbia as an ally. They
also take up strong nationalist rhetoric about the right of their country
to control of Kosovo and the oppression of the Serbian people at the hands
of everyone else. These nationalists provide a service to u.$. activists
by educating them about the history of the region. They point out that
Yugoslavia lost 10% of its population fighting the Nazis. But they turn
around and accuse the Kosovo Liberation Army of being "Marxists funded by
drug money" (a ridiculous assertion, see "KLA embraces NATO" in this
issue), grasping at rhetoric that will turn public opinion in their favor
and against the KLA.

The Serb activists correctly point out that "it is not Serbia
destabilizing the Balkans, it is the u.$. government." But they go on to
make claims of perfection and persecution on behalf of the Serbian people
and their government that are chauvinist rather than revolutionary.

"Amerika-first" settler boneheads

Finally, there is the least progressive group in the u.$. opposed to the
bombings:  The Amerikans who just don't want their tax money used to
"help" people in other countries. These people believe the imperialist
rhetoric about a humanitarian mission and argue for national chauvinism,
calling for spending of money at home.

Organizations like the Workers' World Party play right into the hands of
this chauvinism with the slogan "Stop the Bombing of Yugoslavia! Money for
Jobs and Education, Not War!" This slogan and the accompanying rhetoric
call for spending at home as the alternative to bombings abroad. While it
correctly opposes imperialist attacks on other countries, this slogan
pretends that the people within u.s. borders deserve more booty from the
exploitation and super-exploitation of the Third World. So this rhetoric
fans the flames of Amerikan chauvinism instead of explaining the truth
about the capitalist system and the stake u.$. workers have in preserving
it - and the real, internationalist reasons they should oppose it.

The anti-imperialist position to take

The bombing of Yugoslavia by the u.$. and its NATO allies is and unjust
act of aggression and should be opposed. U.$. and NATO sanctions and other
forms of intervention are also unjust in the Balkans and should be
opposed.

U.$. claims of "humanitarianism" should be exposed as hypocritical, given
u.$. crimes in Iraq, Panama, Viet Nam and countless other places and u.$.
support for brutal regimes in Indonesia, Chile, etc. etc. U.$.
intervention serves imperialist ends:  It strengthens u.$. political
hegemony in the Balkans and Europe and gives it a stronger military
presence in eastern Europe.

The recent wars between different oppressed nationalities in the Balkans
are not progressive and should not be supported. They are clearly
exacerbated by imperialist intervention. The only war worth fighting is
the war to kick out the imperialists - a war which requires the unity of
the oppressed nationalities of the Balkans.

Notes:
1. International Action Center, www.iacenter.org.