Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldsnow who wrote (15521)	12/12/1999 5:11:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Goldsnow, I understand the point that you, and many other contributors to this thread, are trying to make. As a matter of fact, I made more or less the same point myself when this whole Kosovo brouhaha began in the first place. Why, I asked, is the US so concerned about the policy of the Milosevich government towards the Kosovo Albanians, when it actually APPROVED of the policy of the Yeltsin government towards the Chechens? After all, Kosovo and Chechnya were almost exactly analogous: both had been "autonomous republics" within a "full republic" in a Soviet-style state structure, in which nationalities were ranked hierarchically.. The answer, I assumed, was that Yeltsin had the atom bomb (as he reminded us yet one more time, when he was in China the other day), and Milosevich did not; we were afraid of the former, but not of the latter. Simple as that. However, I don't think that because you have been hypocritical and/or inconsistent and/or cynical (i.e., expediency before all else)in one instance, you are obliged to be so forever. In other words, if a Western leader failed to condemn the first Chechen War, must he therefore withhold criticism of the second? Does the fact that NATO bombs in Yugoslavia hit some 2,000 civilians mean that no NATO country has the right to say anything if Russian bombs hit even more civilians in Chechnya? Sure, the Russians are accusing "The West" (whatever that is) of applying "double standards." Sure, the NATO countries left themselves open by violating the Geneva conventions themselves, etc., etc. BUT....there are still crucial differences. (I like Sergei Kovalyov's formulation: 'The Russians are trying to use NATO's means to achieve Milosevich's ends.') AND...let the NATO leaders take their lumps; the important thing is that someone speak out on behalf of the Chechen civilian population, if it's going to help -- or even if it is NOT going to help. After all,Western leaders are -- and should be -- responsive to public opinion. Public opinion is not necessarily inconsistent, or hypocritical, or swayed by considerations of expediency, as the actions of their governments often are. Many citizens of NATO countries opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia; they also oppose the bombing of Chechnya, for essentially the same reason: for the most part, it is not the ostensible targets who suffer from this "approach," but the civilian population. So, suppose, say, the U.S. government heeds us, and speaks out against the Russian campaign in Chechnya. It still probably won't give the Turks heat about their treatment of the Kurds (not publicly, at any rate). Should we therefore say that our government has no right to speak out about Chechnya, unless it condemns the Turks in the same breath? But our government is speaking out on Chechnya because we want it to! At least, I want it to! I want it to represent me in at least this one matter. Is it realistic to expect all or nothing? In short, this is a very sticky issue, IMO. And although I can understand (and even share) the impulse to indulge oneself in a little Schadenfreude upon catching Clinton/Blair with their collective pants down, I don't think one should overdo it...<g> Joan