Anarchists chant pro-terrorist slogans at Athens rally

[Bereta_Eder]

cynicaly speaking greece "benefitted" from the nato campaign (huge financial penetration of balkan markets, huge weakening of potential dangers against greece etc etc). greece is the undisputed "leader" ibn the balkans (as clinton said ) becasuse of the bombing


but we are talking about what was good for the regionin general (and macropolitically for greece itself since we dont live in scandinavia)

[des-esseintes]

Does greece benefit from the KLA freedom fighters currently wreaking havoc in Macedonia?

[Bereta_Eder]

short term yes
long term definitely not if changes are not made, that's my point.

[Bereta_Eder]

and just for accuracy sake i just read dino's port about mass graves.

there are no mass graves. just another demonization plot to "justify" the illegal bombing.

[Ned]

Thanks paiktis. It looks like Dr. Kissinger is (was) entirely in agreement with you. This discussion has certainly help me understand the complexities of the issues.

Henry Kissinger on Kosovo
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 07:09:36 GMT

Doing Injury to History
Finding a solution to the Kosovo crisis must begin by rejecting false analogies to the traumas of the past
By Henry A. Kissinger

The war in Kosovo is the product of a conflict going back over centuries. It takes place at the dividing line between the Ottoman and Austrian empires, between Islam and Christianity, and between Serbian and Albanian nationalism. The ethnic groups have lived together peacefully only when that coexistence was imposed -,; as under foreign empires or the Tito dictatorship. President Clinton has asserted that, after a brief period of NATO occupation, the ethnic groups will reconcile. There is no realistic basis for that assumption. Ethnic groups in Bosnia have not reconciled after three years of NATO peacekeeping.

When American forces are engaged in combat, victory is the only exit strategy. And that requires a definition of issues that can survive scrutiny. The Administration, in pursuit of symbols that resonate with the public, has put forward three categories of argument. The most convincing is that suffering in Kosovo is so offensive to our moral sensibilities that we will use force to end it even absent traditional considerations of national interest. But since this leaves open the question of why we do not intervene in East Africa, Sri Lanka, Kurdistan, Kashmir and Afghanistan (to name just a few of the places where infinitely more casualties have been incurred than in Kosovo) the President has invoked historical analogies or current threats that are extremely dubious. Where he does injury to history:

* Slobodan Milosevic is not Hitler but a Balkan thug, and the crisis in Kosovo has no analogy to the events preceding World War I. Neither Milosevic nor any other Balkan leader is in a position to threaten the global equilibrium, as the president constantly asserts. Milosevic bears a major responsibility for the brutalities in Bosnia, and I strongly supported the American deployment there. But unlike Bosnia, Kosovo is a war for territory considered by the Serbs as a national shrine. This is why there have been few, if any, signs of opposition in Belgrade to Milosevic's Kosovo policy.

* War I started in the Balkans not as a result of ethnic conflicts but for precisely the opposite reason: because outside powers intervened in a local conflict. The assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria (an imperial power) by a Serbian nationalist led to a world war because Russia backed Serbia and France backed Russia while Germany supported Austria.

The Second World War did not start in the Balkans, much less as a result of its ethnic conflicts.

* It is absurd to allege that the economic well-being of the European Union, with a GNP exceeding America's, depends on the outcome in impoverished Kosovo. This is even more true of Atlantic prosperity.

* The cohesion of NATO is threatened primarily because it was staked on the unsustainable Rambouillet agreement. It remains to be seen how long it can be maintained when public reaction to the scale and duration of the bombardment sets in, and when it becomes apparent that the long-term consequences of the present campaign have to be policed by NATO ground forces.

I respect the humanitarian motive for intervention. But this does not absolve the democracies from the necessity of coming up with a sustainable solution. The Rambouillet agreement does not meet that test. Conducting a negotiation based on an agreement drafted entirely in foreign chancelleries and seeking to impose it by the threat of air bombardment has only exacerbated the crisis in Kosovo. The Rambouillet text was sold to the Kosovo Liberation Army (which initially rejected it) as a device to bring the full force of NATO to bear on Serbia, and it may have tempted Milosevic into accelerating the repression of the KLA before the bombs fell. Now it risks involving NATO and U.S. ground forces in policing an agreement neither side really wants. It was a grave error to abandon any effort to strengthen the observers already in Kosovo in favor of NATO peacekeepers who will find no peace to keep. President Clinton, in a speech to the Serbian people, has declared: "The NATO allies support the Serbian people to maintain Kosovo as part of your country". He added that the agreement would "guarantee the rights of all people in Kosovo - ethnic Serbs and Albanians alike within Serbia". This is why the Rambouillet agreement provides for the KLA to surrender its arms to a NATO force. Some ten thousand Serbian policemen are to maintain security; some fifteen hundred Serbian soldiers are to safeguard the frontiers.

None of this is achievable by agreement, only by imposition. The Serbs have rejected the Rambouillet agreement because they see in it a prelude to independence for Kosovo. They also see the presence of NATO troops as the sort of foreign occupation Serbia has historically resisted against the Ottoman and Austrian empires, Hitler and Stalin. Even if they are bombed into capitulation, they can hardly be expected to be willing supporters of the outcome.

As for the KLA, its goal is independence, not autonomy; it acceded to Rambouillet as a tactical device to unleash NATO air power against the hated Serbs. The KLA is even less likely to agree to autonomy under Serbian rule now that Serbia has been so weakened by the NATO air campaign. The KLA will not turn in its weapons to NATO forces. And NATO forces will have no domestic support if they fight the KLA to impose disarmament. Nor will the KLA acquiesce to Serbian forces policing its frontiers. The role of Serbian police and military forces in the proposed agreement is both unclear and incapable of being implemented. The ironic outcome of the Rambouillet agreement, in the name of which the NATO air campaign is being conducted, is that the NATO peacekeepers will replace the Serbs as obstacles to the national aspirations of the Albanians (especially if Serbia is too weak to provide a counterweight). Moreover, as Kosovo moves toward independence, the pressures on Macedonia, a third of whose population is Albanian, will increase. Why should they not be granted the same self-determination as their brethren inside Serbia? And that will risk expansion of the conflict as Bulgaria claims its own ethnic nationals in Macedonia, comprising at least a third of the population, and Greece perceives an opportunity to curtail (or to eliminate) a state whose very name it has rejected.

As the war continues, the Administration must redefine its objectives. NATO cannot survive if it now abandons the campaign without achieving its objective of ending the massacres. The Rambouillet agreement should therefore be stripped of its more esoteric components. The terms for ending the air war should be: an immediate ceasefire; the withdrawal of Serbian forces introduced after the beginning of the negotiations at Rambouillet, and the immediate opening of negotiations over autonomy for Kosovo. These negotiations are likely to be prolonged and bitter. But, at their end, Kosovar independence in some form is inevitable unless NATO insists by force on the kind of Serbian soverainty which the President has promised (a course neither the alliance nor the American public will support).

If a ceasefire on such terms is rejected by Milosevic, there will be no alternative to continuing and intensifying the war, if necessary introducing NATO combat ground forces - a solution which I have heretofore passionately rejected but which will have to be considered to maintain NATO credibility. Whatever the outcome, stationing of some NATO ground forces in either Macedonia or Kosovo will be necessary, to serve not so much as peacekeepers as to prevent the Balkan conflict from widening. I have consistently warned against such an outcome. But, as a result of hesitations and confusions, NATO now has little choice if it wants to avoid a larger war.

For someone who has supported every military action of the Clinton Administration (or who has criticized it for acting too inconclusively, as in Iraq) the war on Yugoslavia inspires profound ambivalence. Serbia fought at our side in two world wars, and stood up to Stalin at the height of his powers. We cannot ignore Milosevic's brutality, yet the disappearance of Serbia from the Balkans equilibrium may tempt eruptions in other neighboring countries containing ethnic minorities. Even more importantly, the problem of Macedonia's integrity will be upon us, threatening a wider Balkan war. Let us hope that it will be handled with greater foresight than the prelude to the current crisis.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
there are no mass graves.

Someone should tell the dead then.

Ned: Don't mention Kissinger to a Greek liberal. They really hate him over there. Worse than Bill Clinton even.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Ned
Kissinger is (was) entirely in agreement with you.

Dino is right. That is the funniest thing I have read today.

Just as an aside, does anybody here think that paiktis represents the trend that Samuel Huntington described in The Clash of Civilizations? The general tendency to reject traditional national alliances (NATO) in favor of more ancient cultural ties (Greece and Serbia are both Orthodox).

I always viewed the civilizational agreement as rather pathetic. I recognize it exists (I feel far more in common with Westerners than I do with pople from other backgrounds), but it seems to represent an increase in the influence that xenophobia and bigotry play in foreign policy. It's one thing to say "I'm like a Australian, so I'll pay more attention to their culture," and another thing to say, "Well the Australians are in a war, and I support them no matter what because I'm like them."

Paiktis, I'm only picking on you because you're non-Western, and because I have a deep and abiding disrespect for your opinions and capacity for independent thought.

[Ned]

Felch X and Dino Doc, I think paiktis is somewhat a product of his environment. He is reflecting the thinking of the average Greek. I have talked to a number of Greeks here in the US who seem to think the same way as does paiktis.

They all seem to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything the US does. And, as you say, they have an even greater negative reaction to the American right. So let us see how he reacts to the Kissinger article.

On the Orthodox solidarity issue, I agree that it is strong factor in explaining Greece's siding with Serbia against NATO. The ancient grudge between the East and West remains a powerful force in the East. And it is not so much the great schism, but the rape of Constantinople in 1204 that is the cause of the antipathy.

[VetLegion]

Samuel Huntington, (whose book I did read) was fundamentaly wrong. His theories work if you keep it at abstract level, or areas you know nothing about, but his description of balkan wars as part of clash of civilizations is simply wrong. we are talking about simple nationalism here

about Kosovo, it will be an albanian state. weather officially state or not is less important, but if they will have their language as official, their schools, their police, their local govt etc, it is de facto their state

Paiktis, I'm only picking on you because you're non-Western, and because I have a deep and abiding disrespect for your opinions and capacity for independent thought.

[VetLegion]

Felch X and Dino Doc, I think paiktis is somewhat a product of his environment. He is reflecting the thinking of the average Greek. I have talked to a number of Greeks here in the US who seem to think the same way as does paiktis.

you dont know nationalism until you see it in the balkans

and greek anti-americanism is very much "words-only" if we dont count the 17N fighters ofcourse. their government is US ally, so its shows that while they are angry behind US back, they are polite in their face. pragmatical bastards

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by paiktis22
and just for accuracy sake i just read dino's port about mass graves.

there are no mass graves. just another demonization plot to "justify" the illegal bombing.

George Orwell

Notes on Nationalism
May, 1945

...there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word "nationalism", but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation -- that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.

When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist -- that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating -- but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also -- since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself -- unshakeably certain of being in the right. "

from:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

Mass graves?

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/2c055dbbadf6fb36c1256a8b0047318f?OpenDocument

So if Serbs found them, then they must exist, right?

[VetLegion]

*clap* *clap*

very good excerpt about what (extreme) nationalism is all about.

moderate nationalism and patriotism is essential however , lest we be erased by globalism

about mass graves, paiktis doesnt recognize a grave with less then 100 000 bodies as mass grave and the sad fact is that when you have two or three bodies in the same grave, it is a mass grave. and they will still be finding those 50 years from now, like some from ww2 are only now being discovered.

[Felch]

Originally posted by VetLegion
his description of balkan wars as part of clash of civilizations is simply wrong. we are talking about simple nationalism here

Okay, I see what you're saying. Would you be willing to say that people (on the outside) have knee-jerk tendencies to defend what they see as their own civilization?

I know my father, who is fiercly right-wing and Catholic, considers anything that is against Croatia to be treachery, and blames the United States for not being very firm against its enemies.

[VetLegion]

Okay, I see what you're saying. Would you be willing to say that people (on the outside) have knee-jerk tendencies to defend what they see as their own civilization?

one history book I have has a whole chapter dedicated to definition of terms 'civilization' and 'culture'. I dont think you have two people even on this forums who think of same thing when you say 'civilization'. I think of civ1 for example, you may CtP

but, no, I dont think people identify with, or are ready to defend a 'civilization'. it is too wide a thing

for example, we in croatia generally like the Irish because we see them as small catholic people oppressed for centuries by a bigger neighbour. like us

but western civilization? what is it? or catholics in general, we dont think much of spain for example

most people dont agree on definitions, so the idea is moot

an anecdote: my very old and illiterate grandmother demanded that the conductors of the population census write her religion down as christian. when I told them to write down rimocatholic she yelled at me. she never heard the term, and kept claiming she is not some rimocatholic but a true christian

[axi]

Oh I like this thread! Although it has veered away from it's topic, I like it more as it progresses.

I think paiktis is somewhat a product of his environment. He is reflecting the thinking of the average Greek. I have talked to a number of Greeks here in the US who seem to think the same way as does paiktis.

I hope that the average greek is somewhat less of a troll than paiktis is!

Samuel Huntington, (whose book I did read) was fundamentaly wrong. His theories work if you keep it at abstract level, or areas you know nothing about, but his description of balkan wars as part of clash of civilizations is simply wrong. we are talking about simple nationalism here

Exactly. Huntington is an old fool. We cannot divide between east and west. All things are relative. Croatia is more western than Serbia, but more eastern than Greece, which is more western than Turkey, which in turn is more western than... blah blah... blah...

George Orwell

Notes on Nationalism
May, 1945

He was referring chiefly to ideologies like Fascism, Stalinism, etc and to the admirers of the major powers of the era. However this applies to the nationalisms of minor nations as well.

He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade.

Many jingoist Americans do that nowdays.