|
|||||||||
Posted July 7, 2001
In the Eyes of the World
...Justin Raimondo commented on Milosevic's behavior before The Hague, namely his refusal to submit a plea of "not guilty" and instead taking the opportunity to challenge the court's legitimacy. This, says Mr. Raimondo, made Milosevic and Yugoslavia look "guilty as hell" in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Several NATO nations were also brought before the ICJ in mid-1999 while the bombs were still falling on Serbia. The government of Yugoslavia was, if I recall correctly, charging NATO with committing aggression against a fellow UN member without a UN resolution to that effect. Each nation submitted its own defense to the charges, but it may be worth noting that the Netherlands, for example, did not deny the charges brought against them, but instead challenged the ICJ's jurisdiction over the matter.
Specifically, it argued that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a UN member. (The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a UN member, but the Netherlands argued that the FRY did not automatically inherit the SFRY's seat.) If we use the same yardstick to measure NATO as Milosevic, that should make NATO (or the Netherlands at least) appear "guilty as hell" in the eyes of the world, should it not?
~ Clancy Dalebout
Justin Raimondo replies:
I absolutely
agree.
Open Letters
Open letter to Justin Raimondo:
Could you please re-read Dmitri O.'s letter from July 6, and this time actually answer some of his specific points, instead of going into another one of your usual tirades against "leftists" (real or imagined)? Namely, if Kostunica is this "almost majestic" statesman who "towers so high above the pygmies that seek to overthrow him," then why is it that these "pygmies" (i.e., the West) initially saw fit to give their financial support to him? - particularly when doing so deprived them of their favorite whipping boy, Slobodan Milosevic? And as for demanding that Dmitri "decide which side he's on," I would think that such an apparently principled critic of the Cold War mentality (indeed, of the entire War Party mentality in general) as you would clearly recognize the bankruptcy of this kind of rhetorical tactic.
~ Daniel Basken
An Open Letter to Daniel Basken:
It is a mistake to view the anti-Milosevic ex-Opposition as a monolith. Clearly, the US is supporting Zoran Djindjic, and, just as clearly, is not supporting President Kostunica, whom they regard as dangerous and an obstacle to their plans for the region. I would add that Kostunica has denounced the International Criminal Tribunal for War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY) in no uncertain terms as recently as yesterday: "In The Hague, there is not much that a tribunal should normally have. There is no impartiality, but only the expression of selective justice," Kostunica told the Corriere delle Sera. He went on to say that "the international character of the court is debatable. In practice, it represents specific interests and especially those of the Americans rather than those of a majority of nations." But of course this will not assuage the Slobodan Milosevic Fan Club (SMFC), of which you are no doubt a charter member.
I would also dispute the idea that my challenge to the SMFC is in any way "rhetorical." Kostunica is clearly under attack from the US and its regional proxies. Will the SMFC defend him – or will they bloc with the US in seeking to bring him down?
~ Justin Raimondo
"Saddamization" Question
I'm confused as to the intentions of the U.S. and Europe regarding the way they are Saddam-izing Milosevic, specifically as to how both superpowers' interest coincide on the matter. This became apparent to me when reading Raimondo's [column, "The Trial,"] when he points out that the ICTFY is primarily European. As we watch the EU gain political and military power, to the discomfort of the U.S., wouldn't such a potentially exploitable situation as Slobo and the state of the Balkans become a point of contention between the US and EU, instead of a joint demonization? Why do the US and EU work together in the US intervening and extending its influence there? Shouldn't the EU be trying to squeeze the US out?
~ Josh Paige
Weather Report
Regarding T. Crnogorac's letter "Change in the Weather": if CNN really is giving us a Tirana weather report the way he (or she) says it does, it must be a very boring report – anyone who has ever been to Tirana knows it is one of the most polluted cities on the planet. As for "99% of the world's population" not knowing Albania exists, that's hogwash, and he (or she) knows it. I can see folks being upset with Albania because of its (as Neboja Malic says) constant use though history as brute enforcers of despot regimes (the Ottomans, the Roman Empire, etc.), and I can see where folks would be upset with Albanian Mafioso being more savage than any other Mafia, and I can see how Albanian tribal treatment of women makes the Taliban look like feminists might upset some females, but, sir (or madam), your letter is simply anti-Albanian, pure and simple. What you need to do study up on the history and culture of this nation, or at least read some Ishmael Kadare, before you summarily dismiss it. Furthermore, I also suspect that where once Serbia was a darling of the power elites like NATO and is now a pariah, the same will happen to Albania, when this people is no longer useful to the power elites.
~ Deborah Lagarde
Lawrence Dennis
Your article on America's great political philosopher Lawrence Dennis was beautifully written and closely argued. Many years ago, James Martin said that America's only first-rate political thinkers were John C. Calhoun (no argument from the sane) and: Lawrence Dennis. "Lawrence who?" the cretins cry – but not for long.
I experienced an eerie affective tumult as I read your piece on Dennis. I wonder if that feeling was prompted by something that I had never experienced before – patriotism, perhaps?
~ Joe Pryce