Having laid out her anti-globalization credentials in the first paragraph (the better to shroud her ultranationalist colors in academic garb), she uses the second to introduce the first of many strawmen. Allow me to quote:
"Apparantly, many people on the left, who would normally defend peace and justice, were fooled or confused by the claim that the "Kosovo War" was waged for purely humanitarian reasons."
Unless you get all of your news from network news broadcasts, it would hard for any real leftist to claim that he or she did not realize there were other factors--such as the legitimacy of NATO--at play in the Clinton Administrations actions. For that matter, even someone who only received their information from mainstream broadcasters (forget even the depth of analysis that a 3-page TIME Magazine article might provide) surely was aware that there were concerns being voiced about stability in the Balkans. And after four years of war in Croatia and Bosnia, the general public--let alone your run-of-the-mill leftist, who might be presumed (just like a self-described 'rightist' or liberal, or conservative, or anyone else who goes to the trouble of professing a political alignment)--could be forgiven for concluding that engaging in yet another round of negotiations and empty threats against Milosevic would be a waste of time.
That was the first of two sentences in this second paragraph. Where do you think Johnstone is going with this? Well, hold tight--she's got a whopper:
"The altruistic pretentions of NATO's Kosovo war served to gain public acceptance of war as the appropriate instrument of policy."
Yeah, I don't know where she gets this, either. Johnstone might be the only person in the entire known universe who believes that the Kosovo War--which enjoyed lukewarm support at best--signaled a significant shift in the US public's attitude toward the use of force. Running for President in 2000, George W. Bush didn't decry "nation-building" because it had been an important issue in his years as Texas Governor. He did it because he knew the public didn't like the idea of being "the World's Policeman." Whatever else you want to say about the man, I'm guessing Karl Rove reads the American public a little better than Johnstone does.
Maybe there were subliminal messages in the war we mere mortals aren't aware of? Notice she says "the" appropriate instrument. Notice that she doesn't specify any particular kind of policy. Where she gets this hyperbolic bit of insight, I have no idea.
But that second sentence was merely the set-up. Here's the real head-turner:
"This opened the way for the United States, in the wake of 11 September, 2001, to attack Afghanistan as the opening phase of a new, long-term "war against terrorism."
It's not clear whether or not Johnstone considers the Kosovo war a deliberate prelude to later military actions (two years before 9/11), or whether she thinks she's explaining a process that led, inevitably, to the decision to invade Afghanistan. She does believe they were linked, however. She will later explain this connection as best she can--better, anyway, than her non-attempt to explain why the American public, in the wake of Taliban support for Al Qaeda, would not have supported the invasion of Afghanistan without the Kosovo war having first innoculated them.
People, we're still on page one. There are 269 pages of this lunacy.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Sunday, July 16, 2006
"Fools' Crusade" part ii
The Introduction to Fools' Crusade by Diana Johnstone begins with a parallel between the Kosovo War and the anti-globalization protests in Seattle; two events from 1999 which occured a hemisphere apart.
(She puts quotation marks around globalization in her text; Johnstone puts quotation marks around just about everything, actually; reality, including 8,000 murdered civilians, is just another "construct" in her world).
You and I might not see the connection--I will try very hard not to dismiss Johnstone's claims out of hand, at least when she is not lying or playing fast and loose with "facts". Globalization is a tricky concept which can mean different things to different people. It is often, if not usually, a term of derision as well.
The increasing economic interdependence of nations, and the concurrent growth of international trade, business, and financial organzations and entities are certainly crucial to understanding globalization. Objection to this process is that it undermines the ability of governments to protect their own population--poor, weak nations are theoretically forced into joining larger economic units, driving wages down and weakening labor rights, safety regulations, and environmental regulations. Commentators often speak of a "race to the bottom," a more and more formally well-paying jobs are outsourced and manufacturing jobs are moved from indutrialized nations to poorer countries with cheaper labor.
These are serious concerns, whether or not one agrees with the anti-globalization movement, and it is not hard to understand why the movement has gained political strength throughout much of Latin America, where economic insecurity and a history of Yankee indifference, interference, and intervention feed resentment.
However, Johnstone is not concerned about this aspect of globalization. Mexican farmers forced to leave their villages and give up their way of life in order to work at maquiladoras are not her concern. What bothers Johnstone about globalization is the threat it poses to the concept of sovereignty; which I'll roughly define as the ability of a country to control what goes on inside its borders. Defending the sovereignty of small nations against multinational corporations and the big bad United States might sound like a righteous, David-versus-Goliath stance. But that is not what is going on here. As we will see, Johnstone's concept of sovereignty is wrapped up in her conception of collectivism in its most tribal form.
(She puts quotation marks around globalization in her text; Johnstone puts quotation marks around just about everything, actually; reality, including 8,000 murdered civilians, is just another "construct" in her world).
You and I might not see the connection--I will try very hard not to dismiss Johnstone's claims out of hand, at least when she is not lying or playing fast and loose with "facts". Globalization is a tricky concept which can mean different things to different people. It is often, if not usually, a term of derision as well.
The increasing economic interdependence of nations, and the concurrent growth of international trade, business, and financial organzations and entities are certainly crucial to understanding globalization. Objection to this process is that it undermines the ability of governments to protect their own population--poor, weak nations are theoretically forced into joining larger economic units, driving wages down and weakening labor rights, safety regulations, and environmental regulations. Commentators often speak of a "race to the bottom," a more and more formally well-paying jobs are outsourced and manufacturing jobs are moved from indutrialized nations to poorer countries with cheaper labor.
These are serious concerns, whether or not one agrees with the anti-globalization movement, and it is not hard to understand why the movement has gained political strength throughout much of Latin America, where economic insecurity and a history of Yankee indifference, interference, and intervention feed resentment.
However, Johnstone is not concerned about this aspect of globalization. Mexican farmers forced to leave their villages and give up their way of life in order to work at maquiladoras are not her concern. What bothers Johnstone about globalization is the threat it poses to the concept of sovereignty; which I'll roughly define as the ability of a country to control what goes on inside its borders. Defending the sovereignty of small nations against multinational corporations and the big bad United States might sound like a righteous, David-versus-Goliath stance. But that is not what is going on here. As we will see, Johnstone's concept of sovereignty is wrapped up in her conception of collectivism in its most tribal form.
Friday, July 14, 2006
"Fools' Crusade" by Diana Johnstone
The introduction to "Fool's Crusade" betrays the cards Johnstone is holding--unreconstructed far-Left diatribes against a perceived monolithic West; a selective reading of current history; a quest to find sinister subtexts in every Western action while simultaneously accepting statements by Milosevic and company at face value; a sinister and borderline fascist embrace of collective identity and generational guilt, and the parallel rejection of a notion of individual responsibility; the creation of grossly simplified strawman with which to do battle; a blurring (when not outright ignoring) the distinction between the admittedly oftentimes simplistic, binary rhetoric coming from the Western media and commentators, and the actions of Western governments and trans-national organizations; and, most insidiously, a disingenuous concern for abstract (to put it kindly) issues of legality and sovereignty to mask out-and-out propagandizing for Serbian ultra-nationalism.
That's a long list, and it might not be exhaustive. The reason I find the final example most troubling is that some of the issues Johnstone hides behind are, on the face of it, reasonable objections. I could say the same for some others as well--there is no doubt that Western media coverage of the Bosnian war tended to be grossly over-simplified. The logic of 'ethnic war' was accepted by many in the West; the Serbs were simply portrayed as the ethnic group at fault. While this may have comprimised efforts to craft sensible policies at the time, and muddies the waters at present while the definitive history of the war has yet to be written, most sensible people realize that news coverage is not history.
The last item in the above list is troubling because pieces of Johnstone's argument can sound reasonable and even revelatory to someone predisposed to dismiss American/Western actions and rhetoric. And I don't want to suggest that the establishment media have never supported the actions of the military/political elite by following an accepted 'script.' It happens. And, as we shall see, Johnstone does sometimes stumble across important issues and provocative questions. Unfortunately, she uses them to deflect attention and change the subject.
In this book, the specific and concrete give way to the theoretical and the vague. Real people, places, and events, become transformed into quotation-marked concepts, mere props. Or perhaps, merely pieces of evidence in a trial where flesh-and-blood victims of specific crimes must prove their innocence, while the courtroom is turned over to lawyers who argue theoretical cases based on intellectualized possibilities even as the trial at hand goes on.
Her fellow genocide denier, Edward S. Herman (the guy who thought the Khmer Rouge got a bum deal, for the record), praises the book in a blurb opposite the title page. He calls it: (I am quoting directly here) "a "must" book for progressives, and for anybody who wants to cut through the remarkable structure of disinformation regarding the Kosovo war and its background that has been institutionalized in the West." He then goes on to praise her for working "with a critical framework that does not take NATO-friendly assumptions, pre-fabricated history, and filtered and decontextualized evidence as premises and truth (or the whole truth)." (Pot, meet kettle). "The result is an excitingly original and powerful book and an essential corrective to a remarkable body of propaganda that dominates thought in the Free World."
Well, that's some heady praise indeed! What important work has Johnstone accomplished, you might ask? Is every ready to enter to the brave new world of genocide denial? Fasten your seatbelts, have a stiff drink, and be prepared to feel the urge to break things and curse loudly--here we go!
That's a long list, and it might not be exhaustive. The reason I find the final example most troubling is that some of the issues Johnstone hides behind are, on the face of it, reasonable objections. I could say the same for some others as well--there is no doubt that Western media coverage of the Bosnian war tended to be grossly over-simplified. The logic of 'ethnic war' was accepted by many in the West; the Serbs were simply portrayed as the ethnic group at fault. While this may have comprimised efforts to craft sensible policies at the time, and muddies the waters at present while the definitive history of the war has yet to be written, most sensible people realize that news coverage is not history.
The last item in the above list is troubling because pieces of Johnstone's argument can sound reasonable and even revelatory to someone predisposed to dismiss American/Western actions and rhetoric. And I don't want to suggest that the establishment media have never supported the actions of the military/political elite by following an accepted 'script.' It happens. And, as we shall see, Johnstone does sometimes stumble across important issues and provocative questions. Unfortunately, she uses them to deflect attention and change the subject.
In this book, the specific and concrete give way to the theoretical and the vague. Real people, places, and events, become transformed into quotation-marked concepts, mere props. Or perhaps, merely pieces of evidence in a trial where flesh-and-blood victims of specific crimes must prove their innocence, while the courtroom is turned over to lawyers who argue theoretical cases based on intellectualized possibilities even as the trial at hand goes on.
Her fellow genocide denier, Edward S. Herman (the guy who thought the Khmer Rouge got a bum deal, for the record), praises the book in a blurb opposite the title page. He calls it: (I am quoting directly here) "a "must" book for progressives, and for anybody who wants to cut through the remarkable structure of disinformation regarding the Kosovo war and its background that has been institutionalized in the West." He then goes on to praise her for working "with a critical framework that does not take NATO-friendly assumptions, pre-fabricated history, and filtered and decontextualized evidence as premises and truth (or the whole truth)." (Pot, meet kettle). "The result is an excitingly original and powerful book and an essential corrective to a remarkable body of propaganda that dominates thought in the Free World."
Well, that's some heady praise indeed! What important work has Johnstone accomplished, you might ask? Is every ready to enter to the brave new world of genocide denial? Fasten your seatbelts, have a stiff drink, and be prepared to feel the urge to break things and curse loudly--here we go!
Well, I've been meaning to get back to the Borogevic/Johnstone interview, but I've been rather busy lately; and then I got a copy of "Fool's Crusade," Johnstone's book that this interview references several times.
(I should note--I acquired a copy through inter-library loan--no chance in hell I'd spend money on it. Unfortunately, this means I can only keep it for three weeks).
So I'm taking a break from discussing the interview in order to have a first-hand look at the book itself. Which isn't easy--it's maddening reading, and I doubt I'll be able to stomach the entire thing. Life's too short to read everything I WANT to read, let alone slog through 200-plus pages of heavily-footnoted dissembling. In the interests of fairness, however, I will tackle as much of it as free time allows.
I've already read the introduction, which I'll cover in the next post. Stay tuned. I don't want to have to enter the twisted world of Bosnia revisionism alone.
(I should note--I acquired a copy through inter-library loan--no chance in hell I'd spend money on it. Unfortunately, this means I can only keep it for three weeks).
So I'm taking a break from discussing the interview in order to have a first-hand look at the book itself. Which isn't easy--it's maddening reading, and I doubt I'll be able to stomach the entire thing. Life's too short to read everything I WANT to read, let alone slog through 200-plus pages of heavily-footnoted dissembling. In the interests of fairness, however, I will tackle as much of it as free time allows.
I've already read the introduction, which I'll cover in the next post. Stay tuned. I don't want to have to enter the twisted world of Bosnia revisionism alone.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Last night my family and I had the pleasure to attend a concert of Sephardic Jewish music at the Embassy of Bosnia and Hercegovina in Washington, DC. The concert featured Sarajevo-born Flory Jagoda. Here is a link to a story about her:
Short story about Flory Jagoda
Also, she received a Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts. Here is an interview from the NEA website:
Interview with Flory Jagoda after receiving National Heritage Fellowship from the NEA
It was a packed house and a wonderful concert.
Afterwords, we stayed around for drinks and some delicious food. I ended up in conversation with a Bosnian man and his American wife, and naturally I was asked "What is your connection to Bosnia"? Whenever I go to the embassy I generally encounter this question at least once (naturally enough, of course). And it's a tough question to answer. Especially because the people who are asking me generally have strong reasons to be there--they are either Bosnian themselves, or are Americans who are doing or have done substantive, important work either in Bosnia (as the American woman had done from 1996-2001; I believe for UNESCO, although I could be wrong) or in government positions here in Washington. And last night, once again, I found myself attempting to articulate my reasons for taking such an active interest in Bosnia and its history some ten years after the war has ended. As always, the question was posed by people infinitely more familiar and involved with Bosnia than I can claim. Not for the first time, I felt a bit silly and presumptuous.
After four months, I still haven't articulated a unifying theme for this blog. Last night, listening to an American citizen (Jagoda has lived in the US--married to an American--since after World War II) who was born a Bosnian Jew, the descendent of Ladino-speaking Sephardic settlers from Iberia, I might have opted to answer the question by gesturing towards the featured performer. She was a Bosnian by birth, despite being Jewish, despite the fact that her ancestors came from Spain. Now she is an American, even though she treasures her Bosnian and Judaic heritage.
Speaking Ladino in Bosnia, speaking Bosnian in the capitol of the United States, Flory Jagoda is a living example of the American ideal of citizenship unhindered by blood, creed, or nationality. Just as in Bosnia, there were--and remain--Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. All Bosnian. Despite the best efforts of petty nationalists to drag the country back to our tribal past, there is still a Bosnia.
A little over a decade ago, a war was fought in the former Yugoslavia between the forces of secularism, individual rights, and cultural, ethnic and religious inclusion on one side; tribal loyalties, collective identity, and noxious notions of 'purity'--ethnic or otherwise--on the other. If you are an American and believe in the ideal and values this country stands for, you cannot help knowing which side of that fight is your own.
Short story about Flory Jagoda
Also, she received a Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts. Here is an interview from the NEA website:
Interview with Flory Jagoda after receiving National Heritage Fellowship from the NEA
It was a packed house and a wonderful concert.
Afterwords, we stayed around for drinks and some delicious food. I ended up in conversation with a Bosnian man and his American wife, and naturally I was asked "What is your connection to Bosnia"? Whenever I go to the embassy I generally encounter this question at least once (naturally enough, of course). And it's a tough question to answer. Especially because the people who are asking me generally have strong reasons to be there--they are either Bosnian themselves, or are Americans who are doing or have done substantive, important work either in Bosnia (as the American woman had done from 1996-2001; I believe for UNESCO, although I could be wrong) or in government positions here in Washington. And last night, once again, I found myself attempting to articulate my reasons for taking such an active interest in Bosnia and its history some ten years after the war has ended. As always, the question was posed by people infinitely more familiar and involved with Bosnia than I can claim. Not for the first time, I felt a bit silly and presumptuous.
After four months, I still haven't articulated a unifying theme for this blog. Last night, listening to an American citizen (Jagoda has lived in the US--married to an American--since after World War II) who was born a Bosnian Jew, the descendent of Ladino-speaking Sephardic settlers from Iberia, I might have opted to answer the question by gesturing towards the featured performer. She was a Bosnian by birth, despite being Jewish, despite the fact that her ancestors came from Spain. Now she is an American, even though she treasures her Bosnian and Judaic heritage.
Speaking Ladino in Bosnia, speaking Bosnian in the capitol of the United States, Flory Jagoda is a living example of the American ideal of citizenship unhindered by blood, creed, or nationality. Just as in Bosnia, there were--and remain--Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. All Bosnian. Despite the best efforts of petty nationalists to drag the country back to our tribal past, there is still a Bosnia.
A little over a decade ago, a war was fought in the former Yugoslavia between the forces of secularism, individual rights, and cultural, ethnic and religious inclusion on one side; tribal loyalties, collective identity, and noxious notions of 'purity'--ethnic or otherwise--on the other. If you are an American and believe in the ideal and values this country stands for, you cannot help knowing which side of that fight is your own.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
The first paragraph served to reinforce the notion of collective 'ethnic' identity and the accompanying belief in group victimization that defines the modern ideology of Serbian ultranationalism. Then, naturally, come the denials that 'the Serbs' have done any wrong at all. Now the stage is set for Johnstone's two-pronged attack on reality: The Serbs are victims of a vast Western plot in the name of 'globalization'; and they are innocent of any guilt in the Yugoslav Wars to boot.
In the second paragraph, the terms of the following interview are laid out. Johnstone's pseudo-objective thesis is cited as a defense of Serbian innocence even as she disingenuously applies her thesis to the Serbian example. Self-referential logic taken to an extreme.
First sentence:
In her book "Fool's Crusade", Diana Johnstone says that, "Unfortunately, disproving falsehood, especially established falsehood, is a hard task. What has been repeated over and over becomes ‘obviously true'…The collective fiction creates its own collective defense.
Divorced from any context, this is not necessarily an objectionable statement from Johnstone. Any reasonable person should be willing to concede that the conventional wisdom can be wrong, and that a misinformed consensus can be a dangerous thing. However, Johnstone is not operating in a vacuum. As we shall see, she speaks in the language of a universal defense of an abstract intellectual position in order to bolster a dishonest, particular viewpoint--namely, that the genocide in Bosnia is a fiction authored by an imperialist Western elite.
This establishes the pattern of Johnstone's approach--while she has, from the beginning, firmly cast her lot in with the Milosevic regime and the Serbian nationalist rebellion in Pale, she does not explicitly present her views as political in nature. Rather, she poses as a disinterested academic who is concerned about the broader implications of the demonization of the Serbian people and the Yugoslav state along with her sympathy for the misunderstood victims of globalization and imperialism. This gives her pandering a patina of intellectual integrity even while obfuscating the real issue--the political and military responsibility for genocide in Bosnia.
In the second paragraph, the terms of the following interview are laid out. Johnstone's pseudo-objective thesis is cited as a defense of Serbian innocence even as she disingenuously applies her thesis to the Serbian example. Self-referential logic taken to an extreme.
First sentence:
In her book "Fool's Crusade", Diana Johnstone says that, "Unfortunately, disproving falsehood, especially established falsehood, is a hard task. What has been repeated over and over becomes ‘obviously true'…The collective fiction creates its own collective defense.
Divorced from any context, this is not necessarily an objectionable statement from Johnstone. Any reasonable person should be willing to concede that the conventional wisdom can be wrong, and that a misinformed consensus can be a dangerous thing. However, Johnstone is not operating in a vacuum. As we shall see, she speaks in the language of a universal defense of an abstract intellectual position in order to bolster a dishonest, particular viewpoint--namely, that the genocide in Bosnia is a fiction authored by an imperialist Western elite.
This establishes the pattern of Johnstone's approach--while she has, from the beginning, firmly cast her lot in with the Milosevic regime and the Serbian nationalist rebellion in Pale, she does not explicitly present her views as political in nature. Rather, she poses as a disinterested academic who is concerned about the broader implications of the demonization of the Serbian people and the Yugoslav state along with her sympathy for the misunderstood victims of globalization and imperialism. This gives her pandering a patina of intellectual integrity even while obfuscating the real issue--the political and military responsibility for genocide in Bosnia.
OK, let's look at the rest of the first paragraph of the Borojevic-Johnstone interview. (See URL in previous entry).
Second sentence:
Although the judges at the ICJ must first decide whether they have the jurisdiction to rule in the case, the mainstream media and the western propaganda machine do not want to leave anything to chance.
As I mentioned previously, the question of whether or not the ICJ has the jurisdiction to handle this lawsuit certainly has merit. One country suing another on charges of genocide is a new precedent, and there could be a legitimate discussion about this issue. It will come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with Johnstone's work or Serbianna.com that an intellectually honest considering of the issues is the last thing being presented.
The second half of this sentence announces in no uncertain terms that we are headed straight to the world of paranoid conspiracies and the cult of victimization; a pitch aimed squarely at the retrograde Left, made up of people who never met a 'victim' of American/NATO/Western aggression they didn't love. I'm curious as to who is behind this 'western propaganda machine.' Sounds like a formidable apparatus.
And now the third, and final, sentence of this opening paragraph:
Almost everything about the Bosnian Muslims accusation against the Serbs is false.
And there you have it. Having already made the semantic/ideological shift from governments to 'ethnic' groups (it is 'the Muslims' suing 'the Serbs'), all that is left is to flat-out deny that the lawsuit has any merit whatsoever. Does Borojevic go into detail at this point, listing the specific allegations and refuting them systematically with facts and persuasion? Please. This one sentence should suffice, if one is a true believer.
Second sentence:
Although the judges at the ICJ must first decide whether they have the jurisdiction to rule in the case, the mainstream media and the western propaganda machine do not want to leave anything to chance.
As I mentioned previously, the question of whether or not the ICJ has the jurisdiction to handle this lawsuit certainly has merit. One country suing another on charges of genocide is a new precedent, and there could be a legitimate discussion about this issue. It will come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with Johnstone's work or Serbianna.com that an intellectually honest considering of the issues is the last thing being presented.
The second half of this sentence announces in no uncertain terms that we are headed straight to the world of paranoid conspiracies and the cult of victimization; a pitch aimed squarely at the retrograde Left, made up of people who never met a 'victim' of American/NATO/Western aggression they didn't love. I'm curious as to who is behind this 'western propaganda machine.' Sounds like a formidable apparatus.
And now the third, and final, sentence of this opening paragraph:
Almost everything about the Bosnian Muslims accusation against the Serbs is false.
And there you have it. Having already made the semantic/ideological shift from governments to 'ethnic' groups (it is 'the Muslims' suing 'the Serbs'), all that is left is to flat-out deny that the lawsuit has any merit whatsoever. Does Borojevic go into detail at this point, listing the specific allegations and refuting them systematically with facts and persuasion? Please. This one sentence should suffice, if one is a true believer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)