This issue of alternatives is extremely important, and doesn't always get the respect it deserves from the left, IMO. As we know, there are many societies in which elementary human rights are being devastated. They are not reducible to a single cause (like "imperialism"); while there is usually an ethnic component, the political, geopolitical, and economic contexts can vary. Nevertheless, the left should be in the lead when it comes to putting human values ahead of communalist ideology. (We are, or ought to be, the party of universalism.) Since the perpetrators of massacres are armed, they need to be disarmed, and this requires the use of force. International exercise of humanitarian force needs to be under the control of international law and accountable in some way to democratic forces around the world -- not just in the citadels of capital. The obvious objection is that this project is utopian in a world of US hegemony. I agree. But there is no way to create the alternative without pushing it before its time. Otherwise, we are stuck with a choice between compromising with forces like NATO or proposing to do nothing in the face of hideous brutality. (No air force bombed Rwanda, nor is any bombing Angola today, but is this any better than what is happening in Yugoslavia?)
When I look at people like Joschka Fischer and Robin Cooke, I see remnants of the peace movement (my former comrades, alas) who have given in to the idea that the choice is between NATO and paralysis.
Recommendation: "Mario and the Magician" by Thomas Mann. Just saying no is a losing strategy.
|