Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (April 7, 1999)
Wednesday, April 7, 1999 to the war in Europe "What has transpired these last few days has supported what we are doing." -Jim Prather "We will always be the big power and people will have to look at us to keep the democratic process moving." -Jim Jackson Dean Darris talks politics In light of the gravity of U.S. military involvement in Kosovo, The Clackamas Print asked Dean Darris, Clackamas political science instructor, his views on the crisis. Here is his response: Q: Do you think the U.S. and NATO are justified intervening in Kosovo? A: Nobody can deny the hu manitarian needs of the area, but I question the remedy applied, the use of force is at best a des perate and poorly thought-out measure. Q: What are some dangers of our strategy there? A: First, geopolitically we could destabilize the entire region. One in every seven people in that area is an ethnic minority. Second, I fear the extension of NATO power and mission beyond its original charter. NATO was, after all, chartered in 1949 as a de fensive security agreement. And last time I looked, Yugoslavia had not attacked a NATO-aligned state. Third, it again calls into ques tion the very moral fabric of our nation-state. Foreign policy can be much more than a cruise mis sile. What if we gave the humani tarian aid -without the bombing? We could have used this as a way to strengthen both our NATO in volvement and our national for eign policy. Q: What would you have done differently? A: At the superficial level, I would have pursued a diplomatic solution through the “good of fices” of the Russian commu nity. Grabbing the NATO sword is the last thing I would have done. At a deeper level, I would demili tarize our economy so we aren’t so beholden to the arms market that is NATO...When all you carry is a hammer, soon everything begins to look like a nail. Dean Darris was interviewed by JoelP. Shempert. Will Bombing help Kosovo? SUSAN ABE StaffWriter "I agree something should be done, but I don’t agree with how it’s being done." -Matt Roberts "It’s too coincidental that it has been going on for years and Clinton just now decides to take action after sexual scandal." -Kris Olsund >e La Cruz and Chamaine Larson. What makes us think that bomb ing Serbia will help the ethnic Alba nians in Kosovo? Granted, the Serb efforts to shut down the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) have gone far beyond the rea sonable acts of a government. The U.S. government’s actions in Waco are a dodge-ball game in comparison. Granted, we’ve learned over the past decade that standing by while ethnic populations are eliminated is not a so lution. But bombing? Let’s work through a few questions: 1. Name several recent examples of a large country, or consortium of countries, disapproving of the way another country treats its citizens, and then intervening (via military, economic, propaganda or other means) to change that behavior. 2. In particular, name some ex amples of foreign forces attempting to influence the people of a country to organize to remove their own gov ernment, whether by bombing them (as we’ve done in Iraq and Serbia) or preaching at them (for instance, over Radio Free Europe). 3. Of these examples, which inter ventions resulted in satisfactory changes, from the point of view of the intervening parties? First of all, the United States hasn’t been all that pleased with the results of military intervention in Iraq or the economic blockage of Cuba; the Soviet Union also got very little return on its investment in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the situation in South Africa, where outside people gave staunch moral support, plenty of advice and organizing re sources, and respect for the autono mous decisions of the organizers at the grass roots, looks considerably more hopeful. The bombardment of Berlin with bundles of foodstuffs and other humanitarian aid was dis tinctly successful. The world certainly ought not, in good conscience, to support Slobodan Milosevic’s actions in Kosovo, or even to appear to sup port them by its silence. But bomb ing? All evidence suggests that the Serbs are not blaming the bombs on their own government; instead, Serb civilians in Kosovo are taking advan tage of the chaos to step up attacks on their Albanian neighbors. Suppose, instead, everyone in America wore Albanian colors (red and black, with a double-headed eagle) for one day. Suppose we all went to an Albanian food festival and handed the cooks large tips. Suppose every American mailed a six-pack of Pringles® brand potato-pulp-based Crunchy Things in Tubes to Milosevic’s home. Silly? Yes. But is there any reason, backed by hard evidence, to believe that these actions would be any less effective than bombing? Last week, Serbs around the world actually hurt the functioning of the Pentagon by the simple action of re peatedly downloading web pages from the Department of Defense web site, thus overloading the system. Wouldn’t a billion and a half tubes of snack products be as reasonable? Imagine Milosevic and his aides, groaning in agony and clutching their bellies, with greasy fingerprints on every document and crumbs in every piece of equipment. Isn’t that a deli cious picture? Genocide is an abomination. We should certainly act to stop it. This doesn’t necessarily mean we should be bombing Serbia.
