America: A Beacon, Not a Policeman       America: a Beacon, not   a Policeman

Conservative Meetings Show
Strong Opposition to Serbia Bombing

Americans Against World Empire

 

EXTRA--5/6 American Legion executive council votes for immediate US bombing stop and withdrawal from Kosovo

EXTRA 5/26 American Conservative Union Directors vote unanimously against the bombing and the war.  The ACU is one of America's oldest and largest conservative organizaions.  It sponsers the yearly CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) meetings which bring members and guests from all over the nation for yearly meetings since before Ronald Reagan was elected.

    The below article describes recent meetings of large conservative leadership groups.  It should be noted that all but 2 of the NATO nations sponsoring the war have socialist or leftist governments. Among conservatives the pro-bombers are the "neo-conservativees" who represent former leftists and are closest to the European left of all the Right Wing groups as well as military-industrial comlex types.

 

Conservatives not Behind Kosovo Effort

by Ralph Z. Hallow

THE WASHINGTON TIMES 5/3/99

Conservative intellectuals at universities and policy-research organizations appear to be overwhelmingly opposed to the Clinton administration's war against Yugoslavia.

"You can shoot a cannonball through the ranks of conservatives and not hit anyone who supports the war," Angelo Codevilla, international relations professor at Boston University said in an inter-view

Most conservatives, he said, believe the war violates a conservative principle that goes back to America's founding: non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries except to counter threats to vital U.S. interests.

Like most intellectuals on the ideological right, Mr. Codevilla believes in the greatness of America, but says its humanitarian and democratic values are exportable by example only, not by force of arms.

L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Media Research Center, said that principle was endorsed overwhelmingly at the annual Philadelphia Society meeting of about 500 conservative scholars and writers last week.

"Sentiment was very strong that there is no rhyme or reason for the U.S. to get involved in Yugoslavia," Mr. Bozell said.

Jameson Campaign, an Ottawa, Ill., book publisher who attended the three-day meeting, said the reason that not "a single person there was for the war" was that they shared conservative principle.

We are a country that doesn't invade other countries unless they are threatening us. There is no threat from Yugoslavia. It is a civil war," Mr. Campaign said.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Walter A. McDougall noted that a few conservatives, like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan of the Weekly Standard, argue for the war. They believe that America should conduct what Mr. McDougall disapprovingly called a crusade for "benevolent global hegemony?'

Such modern crusaders want "to enlarge our empire of freedom," Mr. McDougall, a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Philadelphia Society meeting.

Some on the political right expressed surprise at the near-unanimity of opposition to the war among their ranks.

"Conservatives had a tendency, left over from the Cold War, to support American power, to rally be-hind the commander in chief, but I did not find that at the Philadelphia Society meeting," said David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union.

Mr. Codevilla, however, did not find such anti-war unity to be "remarkable" among normally fractious intellectuals, because there is another principle involved that amidst all conservatives embrace.

No people can govern another 'without the other's consent," he said. "That's fundamental to the Founding Fathers."

Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kagan support the war in part because Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is engaged in barbaric ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and NATO's future and American credibility are at stake."

Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kagan complained that "that once-Reaganite think tanks are putting out anti-war position papers predicting, on the basis of no serious argument, that a ground war would cost thousands upon thousands of U.S. casualties."

One of those think tanks is the Heritage Foundation. Its publicist, Hugh C. Newton, is unapologetic. "Other than Kristol and Kagan in the Weekly Standard, most conservatives are appalled at what we've gotten into ... and are very reluctant to commit ground troops, especially under a president we don't trust anyway," Mr. Newton said.

Mr. Codevilla argued that an-other principle for conservatives should be that "fixing ethnic hatreds and making those people (ethnic Albanians and Serbians) live side by side are not doable, except by the (late Yugoslav President Josip) Tito's force - but not by us."

Much of the Kristol-Kagan view is shared by scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution.

Ivo H. Daalder, a Brookings foreign-policy expert, has argued for an expanded - though limited

- role for the U.S.-dominated NATO that would include using diplomacy and force to make European nations humanitarian and democratic within their own borders.

"NATO must stand ready to enforce the agreed principles and norms that govern behavior within and between states in Europe, by responding forcefully in case of gross human rights violations or when fundamental freedoms are violently suppressed," Mr. Daalder wrote recently.

"NATO's recent experience in Bosnia and Kosovo exemplifies the military involvement that will become the norm," Mr. Daalder said.

For Mr. Codevilla, deciding when it is appropriate for the United States to lead internationally is not easily determined by conservative principles at times.

"There is no simple answer, especially when our strategic and moral calculus is complicated by a lack of trust in the president and his motives," he said.

 

copyright, l999 The Washington Times