From: "Dave Coull" <d.y.coull-AT-dundee.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 18:42:21 GMT
Subject: Re: The Anarchist Attitude To War


I said

>> It is a fact that a great many people
>> on the anarchy-list do not even claim to be anarchists, 
>> and it is a fact that there are a great many people on 
>> the anarchy-list who are not in fact anarchist. 

and Carp asked

>Who, other than me?  And I'm most certainly anti-authoritarian.

Well, according to Keri, I am the most authoritarian
anti-authoritarian she has ever met. Mind you,
as I pointed out at the time, she hadn't met 
many anti-authoritarians. 

>Okay.  You tell me, dave, and I'm not about to insult you 
>for your thoughts:  What exactly is happening in the Balkans?  

That is a  _long_  story. We would have to go into quite a lot 
of history as well as what is happening today. I just don't think 
I have time for a proper explanation of how I see it at present.

>Yes, yes, yes, I know NATO is dropping bombs but what is all 
>of this other stuff?  What exactly is "ethnic cleansing?"  Why 
>should it be allowed?

"Ethnic cleansing" should not be allowed. My problem is over
who is doing the "not allowing". If we allow NATO to do the "not
allowing", then we are in effect consenting to NATO becoming
the world's policeman. In the long run that could have far worse 
results than what is happening at present. 

"Ethnic cleansing" means driving people of a different culture 
out of a disputed area. I say "different culture" because,
in actual fact, the various "ethnic" groups involved are closely
related to each other. To be absolutely blunt about it, religion
is a major factor. In the former Yugoslavia, if you were Roman 
Catholic then you were likely to be defined as a Croat, if
you were Orthodox Christian you were llikely to be defined 
as a Serb, and of course the Albanians are Muslim.

"Ethnic cleansing" doesn't necessarily involve a Nazi style 
"final solution". For the past ten years the conflict in Kosovo
has simmered away at a "Northern Ireland" level of intensity,
but just in the past year or so the KLA seems to have got
a lot of money from somewhere, and things heated up.
What appears to be happening in Kosovo now is that Serbs 
are saying to the Albanians "You wanted NATO, so you go 
to NATO. Let  _them_  have the problem of looking after you". 
Now, that is really bad, but, considered purely from a military
point of view, it could make sense. By driving out the women, 
children, old men, and non-combatant younger men, 
all that is left in some areas of Kosovo is the KLA.
Mao Tse Tung said that a guerilla force was like 
a fish, it needed the people to swim in. The Serb
tactic appears to be to deprive the fish of its sea.
They say that they want the Albanians to come back,
and they may actually mean that   -  they want  _some_
of them back, on  _their_   terms,  _after_  they've 
defeated the KLA. But in the meantime, the KLA 
are isolated, and NATO has the problem of what 
to do with refugees.

>I have no idea how many times I've heard people go off 
>on this list about the attempted U$ genocide of SE Asians, 
>Iraqis, Native Americans, African-Americans, various Kurds 
>etectera, etcetera.  So is this a valid criticism and reason 
>to hate the U$ and cheer for the defeat of america? 

It is not a question of "cheering for the defeat of America".
It genuinely isn't just an American show. If anything,
it appears to be the British government which is making 
the running in NATO. Neither is it a case of cheering
Serbia on. But whatever awful things the Yugoslav
government is doing, they aren't doing it in my name.
The British government, on the other hand, is.

>What strikes me as incredibly "nationalistic" about all of this 
>is not the people who are "keen" to defend NATO, but the people 
>who are willing to see massive influxes of refugees into Albania, 
>Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria.  Places where subsistence 
>living is about all there is. This blind "nationalism," as in "these 
>refugees are not in my country so it's not my concern," seems 
>as dangerous as being "keen" to back NATO.

Some of the refugees want to go back, but some of them
want to head for the West. A short time ago the British government 
tightened up its already very strict immigration laws. There
was a big fuss about "bogus refugees" from politicians
and press. Now that same government which doesn't
want refugees has helped to ensure that a lot of other 
places get swamped with them. If things were left to take
their "natural" course, without immigration officers enforcing
strict controls, perhaps as many as a seventy thousand
Albanians could end up in the UK, as well as loads ending
up in Germany, France, the USA, etc.  The anarchist view 
on this is quite clear   -   people should be free to move 
wherever they want to go. Even if that should mean 
next door to me.


Dave