The attack on Yugoslavia follows the familiar anti-socialist bent of late capitalism and is suspect on other counts. As a result many will not take corporate media reports of atrocities as Holy Writ. At 08:05 AM 6/17/02 -0700, you wrote: >http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/1999/Dec/12.99_chomsky.htm > >BOOK REVIEW: >The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo, by Noam Chomsky (Monroe, >Maine: >1999, Common Courage Press) >December 1999 > > > >Chomsky >ignores lessons of wars in Kosova > > > >By Peter Hudis > >There once was a time when the >radical critic, faced with rape camps and mass killings against an ethnic >minority, could be counted on to attack the offending regime, expose the >complicity of the Western powers, and extend solidarity to the victims of >oppression. But no more-at least judging from Noam Chomsky's latest book >on the >war in Kosova. > >Chomsky debunks the myth that the U.S. went to war over Kosova for >"humanitarian" reasons. He is right that this wasn't the first time U.S. >imperialism tried to justify a military intervention through ideological >double >talk. As he shows, the U.S. bombed Serbia to bolster the prestige of NATO, not >to aid the victims of "ethnic cleansing." > >The problem, however, is that not one but TWO wars were fought in Kosova this >year. One was the U.S. war against Serbia. The other was Serbia's war against >the Kosovars. Reading Chomsky, you'd barely know the second ever occurred. >Neither the nature of Milosevic's regime nor the struggle of the Kosovars >receives any serious discussion. > >A 'NEW HUMANISM'? > >Chomsky does the imperialists one better by not only debunking what they say, >but attributing to them what they never claimed-namely, that the bombing of >Serbia represents "the New Humanism of the New Millennium." (The phrase was >actually first used by the German intellectual Ulrich Beck.) > >This is an incredible choice of words. Far from having anything to do with the >actions of imperialist commanders, the quest for a "New Humanism" has been >integral to the freedom struggles of our time, from the East European revolts >against statist "Communism" to the African Revolutions to the Black freedom >struggles in the U.S. By attributing to the rulers the opposite of what they >are about-a "New Humanism"- Chomsky manages to purge from his purview the >ACTUAL humanism which comes from mass struggles for freedom. This is most of >all seen from his callous treatment of the Kosovars. > >He first of all denies that genocide was ever at issue, since "only" 2,500 >Kosovars were supposedly killed by Serb troops prior to the start of >NATO's air >war. Most of the killing of Kosovars by Serbs, he says, occurred after the >bombing started. Serbia is therefore not to blame for the mass killings and >expulsions; it's really the fault of the U.S. > >He does mention that before the U.S. bombing Milosevic made plans for a >massive >invasion of Kosova, code- named Operation Horseshoe, but he dismisses it. >After >all, he says, the U.S. probably has contingency plans to invade Canada but >that >hardly means it's planning on taking imminent action. Chomsky doesn't mention >that Operation Horseshoe was named after the tactic used by Serb >paramilitaries >in Bosnia of surrounding a village in a U-shaped formation, killing and raping >those caught in it while forcing the rest of the populace to flee. Nor does he >mention that Milosevic sent 40,000 troops into Kosova BEFORE the U.S. invasion >replete with veterans of the paramilitaries in Bosnia who knew very well what >was expected of them with "Operation Horseshoe." > >The one time he mentions genocide is by citing Miranda Vicker's comment about >"genocidal tactics of Albanian separatists." Since he has told us that the >killing of "only" 2,500 Kosovars prior to the U.S. bombing did not constitute >genocide, one is left wondering how the killing of a few dozen Serbs by >Kosovars up to then constituted genocide-especially when most of those killed >were Serb policemen. > >For all his acumen in criticizing the media, Chomsky's critical reasoning >comes >to a dead stop when it comes to considering the Kosovars. He accepts without >criticism THE NEW YORK TIMES writer Chris Hedges' statement that "between 1966 >and 1989 an estimated 130,000 Serbs left [Kosova] because of frequent >harassment and discrimination by the Kosovar Albanian majority." The >revocation >of Kosova's autonomous status by Milosevic in 1989 comes out sounding like a >benign act of a man trying to protect the Serb minority. Chomsky either >doesn't >know, or doesn't bother to tell us, that Milosevic used such exaggerated tales >about the suffering of Serbs to consolidate his hold on power in 1989 and then >launch a genocidal war against Bosnia. > >Incredibly, Bosnia hardly figures in the book at all. It's as if the massacre >of hundreds of thousands through a carefully orchestrated genocide were a >historical trifle without relevance to what Milosevic was doing in Kosova. > >ONE-SIDED ANTI-IMPERIALISM > >The gist of Chomsky's approach is seen when he draws an analogy to the U.S. in >explaining why Serbia responded harshly to attacks by the Kosova Liberation >Army (KLA): "We need scarcely tarry on how the U.S. would respond to >attacks by >a guerrilla force with foreign bases and supplies, seeking, say, independence >for Puerto Rico" (p.31). No one need be told what would be the response of the >U.S. But what would be the response of those opposed to U.S. imperialism? >Obviously, to support the fighters for Puerto Rican independence. But when it >comes to Kosova, Chomsky uses the analogy to ATTACK the KLA's fight for >independence, on the grounds that it provoked the Serbs! > >Though an anarchist, Chomsky suffers from such tunnel-vision anti- imperialism >that he becomes a virtual apologist for Milosevic: "Serbia is one of those >disorderly miscreants that impedes the institution of the U.S.- dominated >global system" (p.13). > >This statement leaves one speechless. He has apparently forgotten that Serbia >was a virtual ALLY of the U.S. during 1995-98, following the signing of the >Dayton accords-which REWARDED Milosevic by dividing Bosnia into distinct >ethnic >cantons. > >Chomsky's failure to support the fighters against genocide in Bosnia and >Kosova, after writing eloquently for years in defense of the victims of >"ethnic >cleansing" in Guatemala, East Timor and elsewhere, shows that the power of >U.S. >militarism has become so total that even anti-statist radicals are being drawn >into making apologies for any force, no matter how reactionary, so long as it >can be considered a bulwark against U.S. dominance. > >It isn't that Chomsky actually SUPPORTS Serbia. He knows the regime has >committed unspeakable crimes. But that just doesn't matter that much to >him. He >instead wants to expose the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy. The inevitable >result of such a one-sided approach when a TOTAL view is needed is that the >HUMAN dimension-those struggling against Serbian policies in Kosova- drops >from >sight. > >Last spring some of Chomsky's writings on the war were circulated by the >Tanjug >press-Milosevic's state-run propaganda bureau. No doubt this book too will be >used by those out to defend Serbia as the "lesser evil." It's a sad commentary >that Chomsky allows himself to be used in this way. > > > > CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO CONTENTS PAGE > > CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO NEWS AND LETTERS