MIM Notes 187 June 1 1999 Reading between the lines on Uncle Sam, Kosovo by a MIM Comrade Boston, Mass. MIM watched in amazement Channel 7's contradictory news on Kosovo, the morning of May 6th. Prior to the major morning news, an in- depth report had managed to flay NATO for not calling its "operation" a war. President Clinton could be impeached for carrying out a "war" without getting the approval of Congress; hence NATO military official are correct to say the issue is a "legal" one. Such clarity got lost in the regular morning news that followed as the media seemed at sea. Reports centered on Russian diplomatic activities and Clinton's response. At first the narrator mentioned peace possibilities and quoted Clinton as saying peace was possible within a day. Then the narrator talked about peace with the Russians. Yet, that would imply that NATO was at-war with the Russians. Next, the stress was on achieving a "framework for peace," but was that framework for "Europeans," which would include everyone or was it just for NATO, which would mean nothing? Finally, the narration ended by saying that Russia's Yeltsin and Serbia's Milosevic were unpredictable. MIM had to wonder whether this was the narrator's stupidity and Channel 7's incomprehension of global news or was it calculated nervousness, as if it would be too much to conclude that NATO was at war with Russia. Later in the morning, CNN reported that the foreign ministers of the so-called G-8 of major imperialist economies (United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada plus Russia) had adopted principles for a "civil and security force" to land in Kosovo. The G-8 usually meets to discuss economic matters such as trade, interest rates and currency exchange rates. The Kosovo crisis is a great lesson in the link between these matters and war. What is significant about this G-8 proposal for Kosovo is that Russia agreed to it. The G-8 overlaps with NATO, but it is not NATO. So to send a "G-8" force with some new name such as KFOR would be to help Milosevic save face. The G-8 also promised to disarm Kosovo Liberation Army forces. The G-8 admitted its members disagreed on whether bombing should end immediately, but they also said they would get authorization from the UN Security Council, which would mean a return of the bourgeois internationalists to the lover (UN) they battered by going to war in Kosovo. Then there is the question of how strong the NATO alliance really was as of May 6th. The answers ranged from relentless and firm to already fallen apart. What is important is to divulge the forces behind whatever happens in the Kosovo situation. Perhaps the first blow was the tie vote in the U.S. House not to approve the bombing of Kosovo. MIM would suggest that the real reasons for that vote are not known to the public. The New York Times heavily implied it was largely a power struggle between Congress and the President over the power to make war. MIM finds it unlikely that there was not bipartisan support for this war and hence grows suspicious of such an explanation in this context. On the surface, it does seem that the Republicans see Clinton as a Nixon of the 1990s. They wanted to impeach him and now they see him as violating the principles fought over under Nixon concerning the War Powers Act. Rarely do we see Republicans so historically inclined and principled, so we still suspect something else is underlying this conflict. On the one hand polls show NATO citizens support the war 2-1. On the other hand, the U.S. House seems to be badly divided. In the aftermath of the vote, Congressional leaders raised the question of emergency funding for Kosovo military operations. "House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, warned that cutting off funds for the operation 'would force an American capitulation in the Balkans and likely lead to the dissolution of NATO.'"(1) We can only speculate that the same underlying division over impeachment is causing problems now. This is not the usual modus operandi for the bourgeois internationalists controlling Congress and the Presidency. Even having to suggest the possibility of dissolution of NATO is an unusual admission of weakness. According to USA Today, House conservatives (usually dependable warmongers) were going to push amendments in military funding "that would force an end to U.S. involvement in Kosovo by cutting off funds."(1) With Armey and also Bob Dole on board for the war, we can conjure up a truly yahoo Republican majority siding with a few Democrats to buck the bourgeois internationalist establishment and end the war. It's one of the few times when MIM will have to give some credit to the yahoos, whatever their real motivations. 1996 Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole has had a special assignment these past few weeks following things with the Albanians. Of course the stress was humanitarian, but on the USA Today editorial page of May 6 is an urgent message responding in very timely fashion to Clinton. He urges Clinton to harden his resolve while admitting in passing he did not approve of "Congress sitting it out." The Dole message is a typical bourgeois internationalist message of loyalty to Clinton in that it is predictable and promises bipartisan support in a Republican vein. The message of being more hard-line than Clinton is the message the Democrats expected to hear from Republicans. USA Today predicts that the Congress will approve funding for the bombing but not a resolution of support for the bombing. As shown in the article on page one of this issue, the military brass and weapons manufacturers used the Kosovo events as an excuse to pretend that Uncle Sam is almost out of bombs and needs more money for its over-stretched forces. Also interesting is the attitude of The Economist, the English imperialist mouthpiece. As before, The Economist mocks Russia for not having the money to wage war against NATO. $400 million in increased military expenditures is what some legislators in the Russian Duma suggest, a paltry sum compared with the hundreds of billions wasted by the U.$. imperialists each year. At the same time The Economist raised the possibility that Russia was withholding its support to "humiliate" NATO. One key item is that Russia said it would go ahead with its oil deliveries to Belgrade by sea.(2) As MIM reported earlier, NATO held up Russian aid supplies for Yugoslavia at the Hungarian border by saying oil was a war supply. This much meant that NATO was admitting it was at war with Russia. Yet Russia insisted on delivering oil to Yugoslavia. Originally NATO determined that it would blockade Belgrade from receiving oil. Yet, after the Jesse Jackson mission to free the prisoners -- itself a mystery regarding to what degree intra-ruling class splits are for real -- NATO backed down and said it would not enforce the blockade militarily.(3) Of course, at this time, it appears that militarily the operation has not failed in the sense of losing. Two people died in training missions. Some military hardware crashed thus costing hundreds of millions. Of course, Milosevic is increasing pressure on Montenegro militarily speaking as we write this. It could be that ruling class splits reflect that NATO is genuinely afraid that Milosevic really does hold the cards on the ground. The only other issue MIM can see behind potential splits in NATO is the question of Europe versus the United $tates. Italy and France want the European Union to have its own military force and not rely on predominantly U.$. forces. Other European imperialists are too afraid of the Russians to do anything that might lead to disengagement of U.$. forces. At the very least, what we have seen is a dry- run of an intra-European war. Time will tell what really happened behind-the-scenes regarding Kosovo. Notes: 1. USA Today 6 May 1999, p. 7a. 2. The Economist 1 May 1999, p. 48. 3. The New York Times 5 May 1999, p. 1.