Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 10:53:52 +0800
From: Joel Ng <jngkj-AT-mbox2.singnet.com.sg>
Subject: Re: roger doesn't want diplomacy


danceswithcarp wrote:

> No, this is way different.  What I was responding to in this latest thread
> is Dave's charge that NATO's actions have rallied even anti-Milosevic
> activists to the base nationalistic cause.  I do not for one instant think
> that every one of those people rallying daily for Greater Serbia and
> Milosevic see their own lives in fatal peril; What they see is their STATE
> in peril and they are choosing to rally to that cause.

If I was a Serb, daily watching the exodus of refugees, and I rationalised that
this was happening because the refugees didn't have a state that would protect
them, I would find that a pretty compelling reason to keep my state in one
piece.  Although their actual survival is not at stake, it would seem, (just
the way the average german saw in WW2) that there is a perception among them
that their survival would be at stake if their state disintegrated.  I don't
want to apologise for the Serbs who are obviously misguided, but I think their
reasons for fighting are not too difficult to understand.  Worse still, when a
huge multi-national monolith like NATO comes bombing everything in sight, the
average Serb isn't about to say, throw down his arms and stop fighting.  If
anything, it would only reinforce his determination to hold on to his arms if
only for perceived self-protection.

>  On the american
> frontier it was not the survival of the state that drove the people to
> commit crimes against humynity or support the state's efforts, rather it
> was the perception of their very own life's peril.  Capital and the state
> then twisted these fears to their own ends.  The number of Serb
> non-military casualties is very low and it is quite obvious the civilian
> population is NOT being targeted.  So to claim the Serbs are rallying out
> of fear for their own persoal safety is quite a stretch.

In this case, as I mentioned earlier, it probably isn't too difficult for a
Serb to fear the worst if they were to lose the war.  It's really the sort of
situation that many people get into everyday - they're too proud to back down,
and too afraid of what they might lose.  NATO's intervention hasn't really
changed the situation all that much with respect to the plight of the
refugees.   If anything, their situation is worse than before.

Any intervention in too great a force would only press the Serbs into desperation,
and desperate people do desperate things (which is why the flood of refugees has
gone up since the bombing started).  A truly defensive approach would have to
include the commitment of ground troops - if NATO is really interested in
protecting the refugees (which I say it is not).  And of course, the refugees would
have to learn to protect themselves or face the long-term prospect of being NATO
serfs.