Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:23:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Orpheus <cw_duff-AT-alcor.concordia.ca>
Subject: nato5.htm (fwd)


To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Cc: foucault-digest <foucault-digest-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: nato5.htm

ccs

        Statement by French intellectuals in Le Monde, 31 March 1999
                                      
                       [Translated by Joanna Misnik]
                                      
   We do not accept the following false dilemmas:
   
       Either support the NATO intervention or support the reactionary
   policies of the Serb authorities in Kosovo? The NATO bombing raids,
   which made necessary the withdrawal of OSCE personnel from Kosovo,
   created  more favourable conditions for a ground offensive by Serb
   paramilitary forces, rather than preventing it; they encourage the
   worst forms of ultra-nationalist Serb desire for revenge against the
   Kosovar population; they consolidate
   the dictatorial power of Slobodan Milosevic which has muzzled the
   independent media and succeeded in uniting round it a national
   consensus which must, on the contrary, be broken if a path to peaceful
   and political negotiations  on Kosovo is to be opened up.
   
       Either accept as the sole possible basis for negotiation the
   "peace plan" drawn up by the governments of the United States and of
   the European Union or bomb Serbia? No long-term solution to a major
   internal political conflict
   can be imposed from outside by force.  It is not true that "every
   attempt  was made" to find a solution and an acceptable framework for
   negotiations.  The Kosovar negotiators were forced to sign a plan
   which they had initially rejected after they were given reason to
   believe that NATO would become involved on the ground in defence of
   their cause. This is a lie which  fosters a total illusion: not one of
   the governments which have supported the NATO
   air strikes are willing to wage war against the Serb regime to impose
   independence for Kosovo. The strikes will perhaps weaken part of the
   Serbian  military machine, but they will not weaken the mortars which
   are being used to destroy Albanian houses, nor the para-military
   forces which are executing UCK (Kosovo  LiberationArmy) fighters.
   
       NATO is not the only, nor above all the best, foundation on which
   to base an agreement. It would have been possible to find the
   conditions for  a multinational police force (including Serbs and
   Albanians) within the framework of the OSCE which would oversee the
   application of a  transitional agreement. It would above all have been
   possible to enlarge the  framework of the negotiations by including
   the Balkan states destabilised by this conflict: Bosnia-Herzegovina,
   Macedonia, Albania... One could at the same  time have defended the
   Kosovars' right to self-government of the province and protected the
   Serb minority in Kosovo; one could have sought to respond to the
   aspirations and fears of the different peoples concerned through links
   of cooperation and agreements between neighbouring states, with
   Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania... No such attempt was
   made.
   We do not accept the arguments with which it has been sought to
   legitimate the NATO intervention:
   
          It is not true that the NATO air strikes will prevent the
   spreading of the conflict to the region, to Macedonia or
   Bosnia-Herzegovina: they will on the contrary encourage this. They
   will further destabilise Bosnia-Herzegovina
   and no doubt endanger the multinational forces responsible for
   enforcing  the fragile Dayton Agreement. They have already fanned the
   flames of conflict in Macedonia.
   
       It is not true that NATO is protecting the Kosovar population or
   their rights.
   
       It is not true that the bombing of Serbia is opening the way to a
   democratic government there. The governments of the European Union and
   of the United States perhaps hoped that this demonstration of force
   would force Slobodan Milosevic to sign their plan. Does this reveal on
   their part naivete or hypocrisy? Whatever the
   case, this policy is leading not only to a political impasse, but also
   a legitimatisation of the role of NATO outside any framework of
   international control.
   
   For this reason, we demand:
           an immediate end to these bombings;
           the organisation of a Balkans conference in which
   representatives of the states and all the national communities in
   these states would participate;
           the defence of the principle of the right of peoples to
   self-determination, on the sole condition that this right is not
   obtained to the detriment of another people and through the ethnic
   cleansing of territory;
           a debate in parliament on the future participation of France
   in NATO.
   
   Pierre Bourdieu
   Pauline Boutron
   Suzanne de Brunhoff
   Nolle Burgi-Golub
   Jean-Christophe Chaumeron
   Thomas Coutrot
   Daniel Bensaid
   Daniel Durant
   Robin Foot
   Ana-Maria Galano
   Philip Golub
   Michel Husson
   Paul Jacquin
   Marcel-Francis Kahn
   Bernard Langlois
   Ariane Lantz
   Pierre Lantz
   Florence Lefresne
   Catherine Levy
   Jean-Philippe Milesy
   Patrick Mony
   Aline Pailler
   Catherine Samary
   Rolande Trempe
   Pierre Vidal-Naquet


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to crosscurrentseas-unsubscribe-AT-listbot.com
Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/