From: "Janet M. Eaton" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:29:56 +0000
Subject: ZNet: Responding to "Moral " Sentiment: How to talk about the War
With appreciation to Michael Albert and ZNet !!!
FYI
je
file:///C|/windows/TEMP/$WPM7F65.htm
ZNet Commentaries
April 21, 1999
Responding to the Sentiment:
"We Have to do Something!"
By Cynthia Peters
There was a lengthy debate at my dinner table the other night
about the situation in Yugoslavia. Most of my relatives defended
the NATO bombings as the only moral action to take in the face of
crimes being committed against ethnic Albanians. I argued the
opposite: that there were very few historical examples of the
United States intervening anywhere for moral reasons, and that in
fact most U.S. interventions resulted in extreme injustice,
increased killing, and less democracy. I made the case that NATO
bombings were having the net effect of causing more death and
displacement for the Kosovars, increased unity among Serbs for
their brutal leader, and less and less possibility that
grassroots opposition to Milosevic could play any sort of
meaningful role in the resolution of the conflicts.
Not only is this true in hindsight, but it was easily predictable
from the beginning.
People seemed to reluctantly agree that our bombings have made
the situation worse for everyone involved. They even agreed that
it was predictable it would turn out this way.
Still, they continued, what choice did "we" have? The Serbs were
murdering ethnic Albanians. We had to do something!
A long back-and-forth ensued during which I made the case that
whenever we "do something," we usually make matters much worse.
My dinner guests pleaded their case that even if the U.S.
government has done horrendous things in the past, it doesn't
matter, we had to do something for the Kosovars. Bombing Serbian
targets was our only choice. We couldn't just let Milosevic's
killings continue.
My sense was that people wanted desperately to believe that we
were doing the right thing. That bombing was the only available
choice and that our government's actions were guided by moral
precepts. One of the people to make this case most vehemently was
my sister-in-law.
After dinner, the same sister-in-law approached me and said, "I
just wanted you to know that whenever we have these debates about
foreign policy, I usually agree with you. But it's hard for me to
admit it. If I fully go with what you're saying, then that means
our government is acting immorally. That they're not really
concerned with right and wrong. That they are acting selfishly
and because of militaristic and corporate greed. If that's really
true, then what am I supposed to do? I just wouldn't know where
to go with that information. It's too hard of a leap for me to
make."
Her revelation was important. Not just for personal reasons (I'm
not as isolated during these debates as I think I am.?), but
because it crystallizes certain key issues for progressives:
Making the leap to understanding the underpinnings of U.S.
foreign policy is not just an intellectual exercise but an
emotional one as well. To truly follow where the information and
evidence takes you feels dangerous to many. It is uncomfortable
to live with the fact that our government is acting immorally in
our name. At a minimum we should acknowledge that this is hard
for people. More, we should build ways to support people in their
effort to grapple with the evidence. Know and publicize the
history of social change struggles. Be able to offer examples of
how people have fought - whether they ultimately won or lost -
for a more just world. Pass along information about people and
organizations currently doing social change work so that others
who are coming to political awareness know there are communities
of people already out there acting on shared principles.
Rejecting mainstream U.S. political agendas does not mean
entering into a void or a necessarily fringe existence. Support
alternative political, cultural and social organizations because
they are doing the critical work of creating alternative
institutions, messages, political frameworks, and forums for
interacting.
Besides hammering home the evidence that reveals the true
motivations and results of U.S. foreign policy, we should have
concrete trajectories that we support and examples to back up
what we are saying. For example, we should call for (partly
adapted from ZNET's talking points by Michael Albert and Stephen
Shalom):
an immediate end to the bombing and demand that true
diplomatic efforts be made. Madeline Albright never fully
explored diplomatic options before the bombing began.
Rather, a series of ultimatums were given and when they were
predictably rejected, the United States claimed that
diplomacy had failed and started the air war. We should not
reject out of hand every diplomatic overture (such as the
Russian call for talks or Milosevic's offer of a
cease-fire). an international peace-keeping force overseen
by the UN General Assembly to stand between the combatants,
and to preside over a negotiated settlement between
different ethnicities in the region. As Noam Chomsky
reports, "A very important observation leaked through the NY
Times on April 8, in one of the last paragraphs of a story
on an inside page by Steven Erlanger, their Belgrade
correspondent, who has a record of reliability. Possibly the
most important bit of information about what has been
happening. He writes that `just before the bombing, when
[the Serbian Parliament] rejected NATO troops in Kosovo, it
also supported the idea of a United Nations force to monitor
a political settlement there.'" an international system,
under the auspices of the General Assembly, to adjudicate
and make decisions about the use of peace-keeping forces.
And an insistence that other atrocities, often perpetrated
or abetted or ignored by Washington because they serve U.S.
interests, receive the same media visibility and
humanitarian attention as the atrocities in Kosovo.
The other day I had the pleasure of hearing Noam Chomsky on
Christopher Lydon's "Talk of the Nation." For a whole hour he
answered questions and succinctly and intelligently helped make
sense of what our government is doing (and could be doing
differently) in Yugoslavia. At one point, he made an apt analogy
that I wished I had had at my fingertips when arguing with my
relatives. He said: Saying that the bombings are justified
because we just needed to do something [about the massacre of
Albanians] is like saying you chose to mow down a robber, his
intended victim, and several bystanders because.well.you couldn't
just stand there and watch a crime being committed. You had to do
something!
The only trouble with this analogy is that we are asking people
to accept that our government is the one responsible for the
murderous overreaction. We have to see our government as having
made immoral choices. There is no masking that fact or making it
more palatable, but let's understand that grasping that reality
is more than an exercise in logic. It's a paradigm shift that
requires rallying a great many resources and supports.
*********************************************************************
From: Mark Clement <•••@••.•••>
Subject: FW: Antiwar-List: Moment of Silence Monday, May 24
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 07:57:30 -0400
> Subject: Antiwar-List: Moment of Silence Monday, May 24
>
> Dear Antiwar Activist,
>
> In case you haven't already heard, there is going to be a worldwide
> moment of silence for peace in Balkans on May 24, 1999.
>
> Thousands of people from around the world will come together at _one
> moment_ in time -- exactly 4pm Greenwich Mean Time (that's 9am in Los
> Angeles, noon in New York, 6pm in Paris).
>
> We will stop whatever we are doing and observe two minutes of silence
> for the people in Yugoslavia. It isn't a statement against the United
> States, or against the Kosovars, or against the Serbians. It is not
> about national borders and governments at all. It is about the value of
> individual human life and liberty. It is a gesture of peace and good
> will for all men, women, and children.
>
> I hope you'll join us on May 24.
>
> Stop by http://www.MomentofSilence.org/ to add your name to the growing
> list of people (from Australia to Argentina to Kansas to Kosovo) who
> will be observing the moment of silence together.
>
> Every name on that list is like a candle in the darkness, spreading the
> light of peace. Every name makes a difference for the people in
> Yugoslavia. Please add yours.
>
> And help us spread the word. Forward this message to your friends and
> family, even if you think they might have already heard about it. Part
> of what makes this an historic event is that it is being promoted
> without the help of any big media organization or advertising budget.
> Regular people are spreading this message around the world, by e-mail.
>
> Thank you for joining in the Moment of Silence.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, use the Web form at
> http://www.free-market.net/features/lists/
> or e-mail <•••@••.•••> with the following command
> in the body of your e-mail message:
>
> unsubscribe antiwar-list •••@••.•••
>
> Substitute your own address for "•••@••.•••".
