Changes

And there is a kind of poetic justice The top winner in the fact that contest for the West finally intervened apropos greatest blunder of Kosovo 1998 was a [[Latin]]- let us not forget that it was there that it all began with the ascension American patriotic terrorist who sent a bomb [[letter]] to power of Milosevic: this ascension was legitimized by the promise a US consulate in [[order]] to amend protest against the underprivileged situation of Serbia within American interfering into the Yugoslav federationlocal [[politics]]. As a conscientious [[citizen]], especially with regard to he wrote on the Albanian "separatism." Albanians were Milosevic's first targetenvelope his [[return]] address; afterwardshowever, he shifted his wrath onto other Yugoslav republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia), until, finallydid not put enough stamps on it, so that the focus of post returned [[The Letter|the conflict returned letter]] to him. [[Forgetting]] what he put in it, he opened it and blew himself to Kosovo [[death]] - as in a closed loop perfect example of Destinyhow, ultimately, the arrow returned a letter always arrives at its destination. And is not something quite similar happening to the one who lanced it by way of setting free Slobodan [[Milosevic]] [[regime]] with the spectre of ethnic passions. This [[recent]] [[NATO]] bombing? It is the key point worth remembering: Yugoslavia did not start interesting to disintegrate when watch in the Slovene "secession" triggered last days the domino-effect (first CroatiaSerbian satellite [[state]] TV which targets foreign [[public]]: no reports on atrocities in Kosovo, then Bosniarefugees are mentioned only as [[people]] fleeing NATO bombing, Macedonia...); it was already at so that the moment of Milosevic's constitutional reforms in 1987overall [[idea]] is that Serbia, depriving Kosovo and Vojvodina the island of their limited autonomypeace, that the fragile balance on which only [[place]] in ex-[[Yugoslavia rested was irretrievably disturbed. From ]] that moment onwards, Yugoslavia continued to live only because it didn't yet notice it was already dead - not touched by the war raging all around it was like the proverbial cat in the cartoons walking over the precipice, floating in is not irrationally attacked by the air, NATO madmen destroying bridges and falling down only when it becomes aware that it has no ground under its feethospitals... From For years, Milosevic's seizure of power in Serbia onwardswas sending bomb letters to his neighbors, from the only actual chance for Yugoslavia Albanians to survive was to reinvent its formula: either Yugoslavia under Serb domination or some form Croatia and Bosnia, keeping himself out of radical decentralizationthe [[conflict]] while igniting fire all around Serbia - finally, from a loose confederacy his last letter returned to him. Let us hope that the result of the NATO [[intervention]] will be that Milosevic will be proclaimed the full sovereignty [[political]] blunderer of its unitsthe year.

It And there is thus easy to praise a kind of poetic justice in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as fact that the first case West finally intervened apropos of an intervention Kosovo - let us not into forget that it was there that it all began with the ascension to [[power]] of Milosevic: this ascension was legitimized by the confused promise to amend the underprivileged [[situation ]] of a civil warSerbia within the Yugoslav federation, but - into a country especially with full sovereign power. Is it not comforting [[regard]] to see the NATO forces intervene not for any specific economico-strategic interestsAlbanian "separatism." Albanians were Milosevic's first target; afterwards, but simply because a country is cruelly violating the elementary human rights of an ethnic group? Is not this the only hope in our global era - to see some internationally acknowledged force as a guarantee that all countries will respect a certain minimum of ethical he shifted his wrath onto [[other]] Yugoslav republics (and[[Slovenia]], hopefullyCroatia, also healthBosnia), socialuntil, ecological) standards? Howeverfinally, the situation is more complex, and this complexity is indicated already in the way NATO justifies its intervention: the violation focus of human rights is always accompanied by the vague, but ominous reference conflict returned to "strategic interests." The story of NATO Kosovo - as the enforcer in a closed loop of the respect for human rights is thus only one of the two coherent stories that can be told about the recent bombings of YugoslaviaDestiny, and the problem is that each story has its own rationale. The second story concerns the other side of arrow returned to the much-praised new global ethical politics in which one is allowed to violate the state sovereignty on behalf who lanced it by way of setting free the violation [[spectre]] of human rightsethnic passions. The first glimpse into this other side This is provided by the way key point worth [[remembering]]: Yugoslavia did not start to disintegrate when the big Western media selectively elevate some local Slovene "warlordsecession" or dictator into triggered the embodiment of Evil: Sadam Husseindomino-effect (first Croatia, Milosevicthen Bosnia, up to the unfortunate (now forgottenMacedonia...) Aidid in Somalia - at every point, ; it is or was "already at the community [[moment]] of civilized nations against...". And on what criteria does this selection rely? Why Albanians Milosevic's constitutional reforms in Serbia 1987, depriving Kosovo and not also Palestinians Vojvodina of their limited [[autonomy]], that the fragile [[balance]] on which Yugoslavia rested was irretrievably disturbed. From that moment onwards, Yugoslavia continued to live only because it didn't yet notice it was already [[dead]] - it was like the proverbial cat in Israelthe cartoons [[walking]] over the precipice, Kurds [[floating]] in Turkeythe air, etcand falling down only when it becomes aware that it has no ground under its feet...etc? HereFrom Milosevic's seizure of power in Serbia onwards, the only actual [[chance]] for Yugoslavia to survive was to reinvent its [[formula]]: either Yugoslavia under Serb domination or some [[form]] of courseradical decentralization, we enter from a loose confederacy to the shady world [[full]] [[sovereignty]] of international capital and its strategic interestsunits.

According It is thus easy to praise the "Project CENSORED," NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as the top censored story first [[case]] of 1998 was that an intervention - not into the confused situation of a halfcivil war, but -secret international agreement in working, called MAI (the Multilateral Agreement on Investment)into a country with full sovereign power. The primary goal of MAI will be Is it not comforting to protect see the foreign NATO forces intervene not for any specific economico-strategic interests of multinational companies. The agreement will basically undermine , but simply because a country is cruelly violating the sovereignty elementary [[human]] rights of nations by assigning power to an ethnic group? Is not this the corporations almost equal only hope in our [[global]] era - to those of the see some internationally acknowledged force as a [[guarantee]] that all countries in which these corporations are located. Governments will no longer be able to treat their domestic firms more favorably than foreign firms. Furthermorerespect a certain minimum of [[ethical]] (and, countries that do not relax their environmentalhopefully, land-use and also health and labor , [[social]], ecological) standards to meet ? However, the demands of foreign firms may be accused of acting illegally. Corporations will be able to sue sovereign state if they will impose too severe ecological or other standards - under NAFTA (whic situation is the main model for MAI)more [[complex]], Ethyl Corporation and this complexity is indicated already suing Canada for banning in the way NATO justifies its intervention: the use violation of its gasoline additive MMT[[human rights]] is always accompanied by the vague, but ominous reference to "strategic interests. " The greatest threat is, story of NATO as the enforcer of course, to the developing nations which will be pressured into depleting their natural resources respect for commercial exploitation. Renato Ruggerio, director [[Human Rights|human rights]] is thus only one of the World Trade Organization, two coherent stories that can be told [[about]] the sponsor recent bombings of MAIYugoslavia, and the problem is already hailing this project, elaborated and discussed in a clandestine manner, with almost no public discussion and media attention, as that each story has its own rationale. The second story concerns the other side of the "constitution for a much-praised new global economy." And, in the same way ethical politics in which, already for Marx, market relations provided one is allowed to violate the true foundation for state sovereignty on behalf of the notion violation of individual freedoms and human rights, THIS . The first glimpse into this other side is also provided by the obverse of way the much-praised new global morality celebrated even by big Western [[media]] selectively elevate some neoliberal philosophers as signalling local "warlord" or dictator into the beginning embodiment of [[Evil]]: Sadam Hussein, Milosevic, up to the new era unfortunate (now forgotten) Aidid in which international Somalia - at every point, it is or was "the [[community will establish and enforce some minimal code preventing sovereign state to engage in crimes ]] of [[civilized]] nations against humanity even within its own territory...". And the recent catastrophic economic situation on what criteria does this selection rely? Why Albanians in Serbia and not also Palestinians in [[Israel]], [[Kurds]] in Russia[[Turkey]], etc.etc? Here, far from being the heritage of old Socialist mismanagementcourse, is a direct result we enter the shady [[world]] of this global capitalist logic embodied in MAIinternational [[capital]] and its strategic interests.

This other story also has its ominous military side. The ultimate lesson of According to the last American military interventions"[[Project]] CENSORED, from " the Operation Desert Fox against Iraq at the end top censored story of 1998 to the present bombing was that of Yugoslavia, is that they signal a new era in military history half- battles [[secret]] international agreement in which [[working]], called MAI (the attacking force operates under Multilateral Agreement on Investment). The primary [[goal]] of MAI will be to protect the constraint that it can sustain no casualtiesforeign interests of multinational companies. When The agreement will basically undermine the first stealth-fighter fell down in Serbia, sovereignty of nations by assigning power to the emphasis corporations almost equal to those of the American media was countries in which these corporations are located. Governments will no longer be able to treat their domestic firms more favorably than foreign firms. Furthermore, countries that there were no casualties do not relax their environmental, land- use and health and labor standards to meet the pilot was SAVED! (This concept [[demands]] of foreign firms may be accused of "war without casualties" was elaborated by General Collin Powellacting illegally.Corporations will be able to sue sovereign state if they will impose too severe ecological or other standards - under NAFTA (whic is the main [[model]] for MAI) And was not , Ethyl Corporation is already suing Canada for banning the counterpoint use of its gasoline additive MMT. The greatest [[threat]] is, of course, to it the almost surreal way CNN reported on developing nations which will be pressured into depleting their [[natural]] resources for commercial exploitation. Renato Ruggerio, director of the war: not only was it presented as a TV eventWorld Trade Organization, but the Iraqi themselves seem to treat it sponsor of MAI, is already hailing this way - during the dayproject, Bagdad was elaborated and discussed in a clandestine manner, with almost no public [[discussion]] and media attention, as the "normal[[constitution]] for a new global [[economy]]." cityAnd, in the same way in which, already for [[Marx]], with people going around [[market]] relations provided the [[true]] foundation for the [[notion]] of [[individual]] freedoms and following their businessrights, THIS is also the obverse of the much-praised new global [[morality]] celebrated even by some neoliberal [[philosophers]] as if war signalling the beginning of the new era in which [[international community]] will establish and bombardment was an irreal nightmarish spectre that occurred only during enforce some minimal [[code]] preventing sovereign state to engage in crimes against humanity even within its own territory. And the recent catastrophic [[economic]] situation in [[Russia]], far from [[being]] the night and did not take place heritage of old Socialist mismanagement, is a direct result of this global [[capitalist]] [[logic]] embodied in effective reality?MAI.

Let us recall what went on in This other story also has its ominous military side. The ultimate lesson of the final last American assault on military interventions, from the Operation Desert Fox against [[Iraq]] at the Iraqi lines during end of 1998 to the Gulf War: no photos, no reports[[present]] bombing of Yugoslavia, just rumours is that tanks with bulldozer like shields they [[signal]] a new era in front of them rolled over Iraqi trenches, simply burying thousands of troops military [[history]] - battles in earth and sand which the attacking force operates under the constraint that it can sustain no casualties. When the first stealth- what went on was allegedly considered too cruel fighter fell down in its shere mechanical efficiencySerbia, too different from the standard notion emphasis of a heroic face to face combat, so the American media was that images would perturb too much there were no casualties - the public opinion and a total censorship black-out pilot was SAVED! (This [[concept]] of "war without casualties" was stritly imposedelaborated by General Collin Powell. Here we have ) And was not the counterpoint to it the two aspects joined together: almost surreal way CNN reported on the new notion of war : not only was it presented as a purely technological TV [[event]], taking place behind radar and computer screens, with no casualties, AND but the extreme physical cruelty too unbearable for the gaze of the media Iraqi themselves seem to treat it this way - not during the crippled children and raped womenday, victims of caricaturized local ethnic Bagdad was a "normal"fundamentalist warlordscity," but thousands of nameless soldierswith people going around and following their business, victims of nameless efficient technological warfare. When Jean Baudrillard made the claim as if war and bombardment was an irreal nightmarish spectre that occurred only during the Gulf War night and did not take place, this statement could also be read in the sense that such traumatic pictures that stand for the Real of this war were totally censured...effective [[reality]]?

HowLet us [[recall]] what went on in the final American assault on the Iraqi lines during the Gulf War: no photos, thenno reports, are we to think these two stories together, without sacrificing the truth of each just rumours that tanks with bulldozer like shields in front of [[them? What we have here is a political example ]] rolled over Iraqi trenches, simply burying thousands of the famous drawing troops in earth and sand - what went on was allegedly considered too cruel in which we recognize its shere mechanical efficiency, too different from the contours either standard notion of a rabbit head or of heroic face to face combat, so that [[images]] would perturb too much the public opinion and a goose head, depending on our mental focus[[total]] [[censorship]] black-out was stritly imposed. If Here we look at have the situation in a certain way, we see two aspects joined together: the international community enforcing minimal human rights standards on new notion of war as a nationalist neo-Communist leader engaged in ethnic cleansingpurely technological event, ready to ruin his own nation just to retain power. If we shift the focustaking place behind radar and computer screens, we see NATOwith no casualties, AND the armed hand of the new capitalist global order, defending extreme [[physical]] [[cruelty]] too unbearable for the strategic interests [[gaze]] of the capital in media - not the guise crippled [[children]] and raped [[women]], victims of a disgusting travestycaricaturized local ethnic "fundamentalist warlords, posing as a disinterested enforcer " but thousands of human rightsnameless soldiers, attacking a sovereign country whichvictims of nameless efficient technological warfare. When Jean [[Baudrillard]] made the [[claim]] that the Gulf War did not take place, this [[statement]] could also be read in spite of the problematic nature of its regime, nonetheless acts as an obstacle to [[sense]] that such [[traumatic]] pictures that stand for the unbriddled assertion [[Real]] of the New World Orderthis war were totally censured...

HoweverHow, what if one should reject this double blackmail (if you are against NATO strikesthen, you are for Milosevic's proto-Fascist regime of ethnic cleansingwe to [[think]] these two stories together, and if you are against Milosevic, you support without sacrificing the global capitalist New World Order)[[truth]] of each of them? What if this very opposition between enlightened international intervention against ethnic fundamentalists, and the heroic last pockets of resistance against the New World Order, we have here is a false one? What if phenomena like political example of the Milosevic regime are not the opposite to the New World Order, but rather its SYMPTOM, the place at famous drawing in which we recognize the hidden TRUTH contours either of the New World Order emerges? Recently, one a rabbit head or of the American negotiators said that Milosevic is not only part of the problema goose head, but rather THE problem itselfdepending on our [[mental]] focus. However, was this not clear FROM THE VERY BEGINNING? Why, then, If we look at the interminable procrastination of the Western powers, playing for years into Milosevic's hands, acknowledging him as situation in a key factor of stability in the regioncertain way, misreading clear cases of Serb aggression as civil or even tribal warfare, initially putting we see the blame international community enforcing minimal human rights standards on those who immediately saw what Milosevic stands for anda nationalist neo-[[Communist]] [[leader]] engaged in ethnic cleansing, for that reason, desperately wanted ready to escape ruin his grasp (own [[nation]] just to retain power. If we shift the focus, we see James Baker's public endorsement NATO, the armed hand of a "limited military intervention" against Slovene secession)the new capitalist [[global order]], supporting defending the strategic interests of the last Yugoslav prime minister Ante Markovic, whose program was, capital in an incredible case the guise of political blindnessa disgusting travesty, seriously considered posing as the last chance for a democratic market-oriented unified Yugoslaviadisinterested enforcer of human rights, etc.etc.? When the West fights Milosevicattacking a sovereign country which, it is NOT fighting its enemy, one in spite of the last points problematic [[nature]] of resistance against the liberal-democratic New World Order; it is rather fighting its own creatureregime, a monster that grew nonetheless [[acts]] as an obstacle to the result unbriddled assertion of the compromises and inconsistencies of the Western politics itself. (And, incidentally, it is the same as with Iraq: its strong position is also the result of the American strategy of containing Iran[[New World Order]].)

In However, what if one should reject this [[double]] [[blackmail]] (if you are against NATO strikes, you are for Milosevic's [[proto-Fascist]] regime of ethnic cleansing, and if you are against Milosevic, you support the global capitalist New World Order)? What if this very opposition between enlightened international intervention against ethnic fundamentalists, and the heroic last decadepockets of [[resistance]] against the New World Order, the West followed is a Hamlet-[[false]] one? What if phenomena like procrastination towards Balkanthe Milosevic regime are not the opposite to the New World Order, but rather its [[Symptom|SYMPTOM]], and the present bombardment has effectively all place at which the signs hidden TRUTH of Hamlet's final murderous outburst in which a lot the New World Order emerges? Recently, one of people unnecessarily die (the American negotiators said that Milosevic is not only part of the King, his true targetproblem, but also his motherrather THE problem itself. However, Laertiuswas this not clear FROM THE VERY BEGINNING? Why, Hamlet himelf...)then, because Hamlet acted too late, when the proper moment was already missed. We are clearly dealing with a hysterical acting outinterminable procrastination of the Western powers, with an escape playing for years into activityMilosevic's hands, with acknowledging him as a gesture thatkey factor of [[stability]] in the region, instead misreading clear cases of trying to achieve a well-defined goalSerb [[aggression]] as civil or even tribal warfare, rather bears witness to initially putting the fact blame on those who immediately saw what Milosevic stands for and, for that there is no such goal[[reason]], that the agent is caught in desperately wanted to escape his grasp (see [[James]] Baker's public [[endorsement]] of a web of conflicting goals. So "limited military intervention" against Slovene secession), supporting the Westlast Yugoslav prime minister Ante Markovic, whose program was, in the present intervention which displays all the signs of a violent outburst an incredible case of impotent aggressivity without a clear political goalblindness, is now paying seriously considered as the price last chance for a democratic market-oriented [[unified]] Yugoslavia, etc.etc.? When the years West fights Milosevic, it is NOT fighting its [[enemy]], one of entertaining illusions that one can make a deal with Milosevic: with the recent hesitations about last points of resistance against the ground intervention in Kosovo, the Serbian regime [[liberal]]-democratic New World Order; it israther fighting its own creature, under a monster that grew as the pretext result of war, launching the final assault on Kosovo compromises and purge it of most inconsistencies of the AlbaniansWestern politics itself. (And, incidentally, cynically accepting bombardments it is the same as with Iraq: its strong [[position]] is also the result of the price to be paidAmerican strategy of containing [[Iran]].)

When In the Western powers repeat last decade, the West followed a [[Hamlet]]-like procrastination towards [[Balkan]], and the present bombardment has effectively all the time that they are [[signs]] of Hamlet's final murderous [[outburst]] in which a lot of people unnecessarily die (not fighting only the Serb peopleKing, his true target, but only their corrupted leadersalso his [[mother]], Laertius, Hamlet himelf...), because Hamlet acted too late, they rely on when the (typically liberal) wrong premise proper moment was already missed. We are clearly dealing with a [[hysterical]] [[acting out]], with an escape into [[activity]], with a gesture that Serbs are victims , instead of their evil leadership personified in Milosevictrying to achieve a well-defined goal, manipulated by him. The painful rather bears [[witness]] to the fact that there is no such goal, that the Serb aggressive nationalism enjoys the support [[agent]] is caught in a web of conflicting goals. So the large majority of the population - noWest, Serbs are not passive victims of nationalist manipulation, they are not Americans in disguise, just waiting to be delivered from the nationalist spell. On present intervention which displays all the other handsigns of a violent outburst of impotent [[aggressivity]] without a clear political goal, this misperception is accompanied by now paying the apparently contradictory notion according to which, Balkan people are living in price for the past, fighting again and again old battles, perceiving recent situation through old myths... One is tempted to say years of entertaining illusions that these two cliches should be precisely TURNED AROUNDone can make a deal with Milosevic: not only are people not "good," since they let themselves be manipulated with obscene pleasure; there are also no "old myths" which we need to study if we are really to understand the complex situationrecent hesitations about the ground intervention in Kosovo, just the PRESENT outburst of racist nationalism which, according to its needsSerbian regime is, opportunistically resuscitates old myths. To paraphrase under the old Clintonian motto: nopretext of war, it's not launching the old myths final assault on Kosovo and ethnic hatreds, purge it's of most of the POLITICAL POWER STRUGGLEAlbanians, stupid!cynically accepting bombardments as the price to be paid.

So, on When the one hand, we have Western powers [[repeat]] all the obscenities of the Serb state propaganda: [[time]] that they regularily refer to Clinton are not as "fighting the American presidentSerb people," but as "the American Fuehrer"; two of the transparents on only their state-organized anti-Nato demonstrations were "Clintoncorrupted leaders, come here and be our Monica!" they rely on the (i.e. suck our...typically liberal)wrong premise that Serbs are victims of their evil leadership personified in Milosevic, and "Monica, did you suck out also his brain?"manipulated by him. This The painful fact is where that the Serb [[aggressive]] [[nationalism]] [[enjoys]] the support of the large majority of the NATO planners got it wrongpopulation - no, Serbs are not [[passive]] victims of nationalist manipulation, caught they are not Americans in their schemes of strategic reasoningdisguise, unable just waiting to forecast that the Serb reaction to bombardment will be a recourse to a collective Bakhtinian carnivalization of delivered from the social life..nationalist spell. And On the Western counterpoint to other hand, this obscenity misperception is accompanied by the more apparently contradictory notion according to which, Balkan people are [[living]] in the [[past]], fighting again and more openly racist tone of its reportingagain old battles, perceiving recent situation through old [[myths]]... One is tempted to say that these two cliches should be precisely TURNED AROUND: when the three American soldiers were taken prisonersnot only are people not "[[good]], CNN dedicated the first 10 minutes of the News " since they let themselves be manipulated with [[obscene]] [[pleasure]]; there are also no "old myths" which we [[need]] to their predicament (although everyone knew that NOTHING will happen study if we are really to them!)[[understand]] the complex situation, and only then reported on just the tens PRESENT outburst of thousands of refugeesracist nationalism which, according to its [[needs]], burned villages and Pristina turning into a ghost townopportunistically resuscitates old myths. Where is To paraphrase the so-much-praised Serb "democratic opposition" to protest THIS horror taking place in their own backyardold Clintonian motto: no, it's not only the - till nowold myths and ethnic hatreds, at leastit's the POLITICAL POWER STRUGGLE, bombardments with relatively very low casualties?stupid!

So, on the one hand, we have the obscenities of the Serb state propaganda: they regularily refer to [[Clinton]] not as "the American president," but as "the American Fuehrer"; two of the transparents on their state-organized anti-Nato demonstrations were "Clinton, come here and be our Monica!" (i.e. suck our...), and "Monica, did you suck out also his brain?". This is where the NATO planners got it wrong, caught in their schemes of strategic reasoning, unable to forecast that the Serb reaction to bombardment will be a recourse to a collective Bakhtinian carnivalization of the social [[life]]... And the Western counterpoint to this [[obscenity]] is the more and more openly racist tone of its reporting: when the [[three]] American soldiers were taken prisoners, CNN dedicated the first 10 minutes of the News to their predicament (although everyone knew that [[Nothing|NOTHING]] will happen to them!), and only then reported on the tens of thousands of refugees, burned villages and Pristina turning into a [[ghost]] town. Where is the so-much-praised Serb "democratic opposition" to protest THIS [[horror]] taking place in their own backyard, not only the - till now, at least, bombardments with relatively very low casualties? The atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnivalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic [[music ]] on the streets, under the motto "With music against bombs!", playing the [[role ]] of the defying heroes (since they [[know ]] that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets). Although it may [[fascinate ]] some confused pseudo-Leftists, this obscene carnivalization of the social life is effectively the other, public, face of ethnic cleansing: while in Belgrade people defiantly dance on the streets, three hundred kilometers to the South, a genocide of African proportions is taking place.

In the recent [[struggle ]] of the so-called "democratic opposition" in Serbia against the Milosevic's regime, the truly touchy topic is the stance towards Kosovo: as to this topic, the large majority of the "democratic opposition" unconditionally endorses Milosevic's anti-Albanian nationalist agenda, even accusing him of making compromises with the West and "betraying" Serb national interests in Kosovo. In the course of the student demonstrations against the Milosevic's Socialist Party falsification of the election results in the Winter of 1996, the Western media who closely followed the events and praised the revived democratic spirit in Serbia, rarely mentioned the fact that one of the regular slogans of the demonstrators against the special police forces was "Instead of kicking us, go to Kosovo and kick out the Albanians!". In today's Serbia, the absolute sine qua non of an authentic [[political act ]] would thus be to unconditionally reject the [[ideological ]] topos of the "Albanian threat to Serbia."

In the last years, the Serb propaganda is promoting the [[identification ]] of Serbia as the second Israel, with Serbs as the chosen nation, and Kosovo as their West Bank where they fight, in the guise of "Albanian terrorists," their own intifada. Thew went as far as [[repeating ]] the old Israeli complaint against the Arabs: "We will pardon you for what you did to us, but we will never pardon you for forcing us to do to YOU the horrible things we had to do in order to [[defend ]] ourselves!" The hilariously-mocking Serb apology for shooting down the stealth bomber was: "Sorry, we didn't know you are invisible!" One is tempted to say that the answer to Serb complaints about the "[[irrational ]] barbaric bombing" of their country should be: "Sorry, we didn't know you are a chosen nation!" One [[thing ]] is for sure: the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia will [[change ]] the global geopolitic coordinates. The unwritten pact of peaceful coexistence (the respect of each state's full sovereignty, i.e. non-interference in [[internal ]] affairs, even in the case of the grave violation of human rights) is over. However, the very first act of the new global police force usurping the [[right ]] to punish sovereign states for their wrongdoings already signals its end, its own undermining, since it immediately became clear that this [[universality ]] of human rights as its legitimization is false, i.e. that the attacks on selective targets protect [[particular ]] interests. The NATO bombardments of Yugoslavia also signal the end of any serious role of UN and Security Council: it is NATO under US guidance that effectively pulls the strings. Furthermore, the silent pact with Russia that held till now is broken: in the [[terms ]] of this pact, Russia was publicly treated as a superpower, allowed to maintain the [[appearance ]] of being one, on condition that it did not effectively act as one. Now Russia's [[humiliation ]] is open, any pretense of dignity is unmasked: Russia can only openly resist or openly comply with Western pressure. The further [[logical ]] result of this new situation will be, of course, the renewed rise of anti-Western resistance from Eastern [[Europe ]] to the [[Third ]] World, with the sad consequence that criminal [[figures ]] like Milosevic will be elevated into the model fighters against the New World Order.

So the lesson is that the alternative between the New World Order and the neoracist nationalists opposing it is a false one: these are the two sides of the same coin - the New World Order itself breeds monstrosities that it fights. Which is why the protests against bombing from the reformed Communist parties all around Europe, inclusive of PDS, are totally misdirected: these false protesters against the NATO bombardment of Serbia are like the caricaturized pseudo-Leftists who oppose the trial against a drug dealer, claiming that his crime is the result of social [[pathology ]] of the capitalist [[system]]. The way to fight the capitalist New World Order is not by supporting local proto-Fascist [[resistances ]] to it, but to focus on the only serious question today: how to build TRANSNATIONAL political movements and institutions strong enough to seriously constraint the unlimited rule of the capital, and to render [[visible ]] and politically relevant the fact that the local fundamentalist resistances against the New World Order, from Milosevic to [[le Pen ]] and the extreme Right in Europe, are part of it?

What all this means is that the [[impasse ]] of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia is not simply the result of some particular failure of strategic reasoning, but depends on the fundamental [[inconsistency ]] of the very notion of which this intervention relies. The problem with NATO acting in Yugoslavia as an agent of "militaristic [[humanism]]" or even "militaristic pacifism" (Ulrich Beck) is not that this term is an Orwellian oxymorom (reminding us of "Peace is war" slogans from his 1984) which, as such, directly belies the truth of its position (against this obvious pacifist-liberal criticism, I rather think that it is the pacifist position - "more bombs and killing never brings piece" - which is a fake, and that one should heroically ENDORSE the [[paradox ]] of militaristic pacifism); it is neither that, obviously, the targets of bombardment are not chosen out of pure [[moral ]] consideration, but selectively, depending on unadmitted geopolitic and economic strategic interests (the obvious [[Marxist]]-style criticism). The problem is rather that this purely humanitarian-[[ethic ]] legitimization (again) thoroughly DEPOLITICIZES the military intervention, changing it into an intervention into humanitarian catastrophy, grounded in purely moral reasons, not an intervention into a well-defined political struggle.

Furthermore, what we are witnessing today is the strange phenomenon of the blurred line of [[separation ]] between private and public in the political [[discourse]]: say, when the [[German ]] [[defense ]] minister Rudolph Scharping tried to justify the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, he did not present his stance as something grounded in a clear cold decision, but went deep into rendering public his inner turmoil, openly evoking his doubts, his moral dilemmas apropos of this difficult decision, etc. So, if this tendency will catch on, we shall no longer have politicians who, in public, will [[speak ]] the cold impersonal [[official ]] [[language]], following the [[ritual ]] of public declarations, but will share with the public their inner turmoils and doubts in a unique display of "sincerity." Here, however, the mystery begins: one would expect this "sincere" sharing of private dilemmas to act as a counter-measure to the predominant [[cynicism ]] of those in power: is not the ultimate cynicist a politician who, in his public discourse, speaks in a cold dignified language about the high politics, while privately, he entertains a distance towards his statements, well aware of particular pragmatic considerations that lay behind these high principled public statements? It thus may seem that the natural counterpoint to cynicism is the "dignified" public discourse - however, a closer look soon reveals that the "sincere" revealing of inner turmoils is the ultimate, highest form of cynicism. The impersonal "dignified" public [[speech ]] counts on the gap between public and private - we are well aware that, when a politician speaks in the official dignified tone, he speaks as the stand-in for the Institution, not as a [[psychological ]] individual (i.e. the Institution speaks THROUGH him), and therefore nobody expects him to be "sincere," since that is simply NOT THE POINT (in the same way a judge who passses a [[sentence ]] is not expected to be "sincere," but simply to follow and apply the law, whatever his sentiments). On the other hand, the public sharing of the inner turmoils, the coincidence between public and private, even and especially when it is psychologically "sincere," is cynical - not because such a public display of private doubts and uncertainties is faked, concealing the true privacy: what this display conceals is the [[Objective|OBJECTIVE ]] socio-political and ideological [[dimension ]] of the decisions, so the more this display is psychologicaly "sincere," the more it is "objectively" cynical in that it mystifies the true social [[meaning ]] and effect of these decisions.

The crucial feature of the [[postmodern ]] ethnic [[fundamentalism ]] is thus double: on the one hand, it is "reflexive" nationalism, a reflexively CHOSEN one, no longer the immediate relating to a national substance; on the other hand, it does designate the return to absolute immediacy - but, as [[Hegel ]] would have put it, as the result of a long [[process ]] of mediation - say, the stupid skinhead who beats up [[foreigners ]] just for the fun of it IS the restored immediacy, the result of the total reflexivization of our daily lives.

The ultimate paradox of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is thus not the one about which Western pacifists complain (by bombing Yugoslavia in order to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, NATO effectively triggered a large-scale cleansing and thus created the very humanitarian catastrophy it wanted to prevent), but a deeper paradox involved in the [[ideology ]] of [[victimization]]: the key aspect to take note of if NATO's privileging of the now discredited "moderate" Kosovar faction of Ibrahim Rugova against the "radical" Kosovo Liberation [[Army ]] (not only does KLA get no [[help]], but even its financial assets are blocked, so that they cannot buy the arms and are thus exposed to the onslaught of much better equipped Serb army and slowly decimated). What this means is that NATO is actively blocking the only and obvious alternative to the ground intervention of Western military forces: the full-scale armed resistance of the Albanians themselves. (The moment this option is mentioned, fears start to circulate: KLA is not really an army, just a bunch of untrained fighters; we should not trust KLA, since it is involved in drug trafficking and/or is a [[Maoist ]] group whose victory would led to a Khmer Rouge or Taliban regime in Kosovo...) In short, while NATO is intervening in order to protect the Kosovar victims, it is at the same time well taking care that THEY WILL REMAIN VICTIMS, not an [[active ]] politico-military force capable of defending itself: even if NATO will eventually occupy the entire Kosovo, it will be a devastated country with victimized population, not a strong political [[subject]]. What we [[encounter ]] here is again the paradox of victimization: the Other to be protected is good INSOFAR AS IT REMAINS A VICTIM (which is why we are bombarded with pictures of [[helpless ]] Kosovar mothers, children and elder people, telling moving stories of their [[suffering]]); the moment it no longer behaves as a [[victim]], but wants to strike back on its own, it all of a sudden magically turns into a terrorist/fundamentalist/drug-trafficking Other...

A report by Steven Erlanger on the suffering of the Kosovo Albanians in The New York [[Times ]] (May 12 1999, page A 13) renders perfectly this logic of victimization. Already its title is tell-taling: "In One Kosovo [[Woman]], An Emblem of Suffering" - [[The Subject|the subject ]] to be protected (by the NATO intervention) is from the outset [[identified ]] as a powerless victim of circumstances, deprived of all political [[identity]], reduced to the bare suffering. Her basic stance is that of excessive suffering, of traumatic [[experience ]] that blurs all differences: "She's seen too much, Meli said. She wants a rest. She wants it to be over." As such, she is beyond any political recrimination - an independent Kosovo is not on her agenda, she just wants the horror over: "Does she favor an independent Kosovo? 'You know, I don't care if it's this or that,' Meli said. 'I just [[want ]] all this to end, and to feel good again, to feel good in my place and my house with my friends and [[family]].'" Her support of the foreign (NATO) intervention is grounded in her [[wish ]] for all this horror to be over: "She wants a settlement that brings foreigners here 'with some force behind them.' She is indifferent about who the foreigners are." Consequently, she sympathizes with all the sides in an all-embracing [[humanist ]] stance: "There is [[tragedy ]] enough for everyone, she says. 'I feel sorry for the Serbs who've been bombed and died, and I feel sorry for my own people. But maybe now there will be a conclusion, a settlement for good. That would be great." - Here we have the ideological [[construction ]] of the [[ideal ]] subject-victim to whose aid NATO intervenes: not a political subject with a clear agenda, but a subject of helpless suffering, sympathizing with all suffering sides in the conflict, caught in the [[madness ]] of a local clash that can only be pacified by the intervention of a benevolent foreign power, a subject whose innermost [[desire ]] is reduced to the almost [[animal ]] craving to "feel good again"...

Therein resides the [[falsity ]] of the otherwise admirable Tariq Ali's essay on the NATO interventionin Yugoslavia: "The claim that it is all Milosevic's fault is one-sided and erroneous, indulging those Slovenian, Croatian and Western politicians who allowed him to succeed. It could be argued, for [[instance]], that it was Slovene egoism, throwing the Bosnians and Albanians, as well as non-nationalist Serbs and Croats, to the wolves, that was a decisive factor in triggering the [[whole ]] disaster of disintegration."� The correct insight and the incredible naivety are here closely intermingled. It certainly is true that the main [[responsibility ]] of [[others ]] for Milosevic's success resides in their "allowing him to succeed," in their readiness to accept him as a "factor of stability" and tolerate his "excesses" with the hope of striking a deal with him; and it is true that such a stance was clearly discernible among Slovene, Croat and Western politicians (for example, there certainly are grounds to suspect that the relatively smooth path to Slovene independence involved a silent informal pact between Slovene leadership and Milosevic, whose project of a "greater Serbia" had no need for Slovenia). However, two things are to be added here. First, this argument itself asserts that the responsibility of others is of a fundamentally different nature than that of Milosevic: the point is not that "they were all equally [[guilty]], participating in nationalist madness," but that others were guilty of not being harsh enough towards Milosevic, of not unconditionally opposing him at any price. Secondly, what this argument overlooks is how the same reproach of "egoism" can be applied to ALL actors, inclusive of Muslims, the greatest victims of the (first [[phase ]] of the) war: when Slovenia proclaimed independence, the Bosnisn leadership OPENLY SUPPORTED the Yugoslav intervention in Slovenia instead of risking confrontation at that early date, and thus contributed to their later sad fate. So the Muslim strategy in the first year of the conflict was also not without opportunism: its hidden reasoning was "let the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs bleed each other to exhaustion, so that, in the aftermath of their conflict, we shall gain for no great price an independent Bosnia"... (It is one of the ironies of the Yugoslav-Croat war that the legendary Bosnian commander who successfully defended the besieged Bihac region against the Yugoslav army, commanded two years ago the Yugoslav army units which were laying a siege to the Croat coast city Zadar!).

There is, however, a more crucial problem that one should confront here: the [[uncanny ]] detail that cannot but strike the eye in the quote from Tariq Ali is the unexpected recourse, in the midst of a political [[analysis]], to a psychological [[category]]: "Slovene egoism" - why the need for this reference that clearly sticks out? On what ground can one claim that Serbs, Muslims and Croats acted LESS "egotistically" in the course of Yugoslavia's disintegration? The underlying premise is here that Slovenes, when they saw the (Yugoslav) house falling apart, "egotistically" seized the opportunity and fled away, instead of - what? Heroically throwing THEMSELVES ALSO to the wolves? Slovenes are thus imputed to start it all, to set in motion the process of disintegration (by being the first to leave Yugoslavia) and, on the top of it, being allowed to escape without proper penalty, suffering no serious damage. Hidden beneath this [[perception ]] is a whole nest of pseudo-[[Leftist ]] prejudices and dogmas: the secret [[belief ]] in the viability of Yugoslav [[self]]-management [[socialism]], the notion that small nations like Slovenia cannot effectively function like modern democracies, but necessarily regress to a proto-Fascist "closed" community...

So what should the Serb "democratic opposition" do? Let us recall [[Freud]]'s late book on [[Moses ]] and [[Monotheism]]: how did he react to the [[Nazi ]] anti-Semitic threat? Not by joining the ranks of the beleaguered [[Jews ]] in the defense of their legacy, but by targetting its own people, the most precious part of the [[Jewish ]] legacy, the founding [[figure ]] of Moses, i.e. by endeavouring to deprive Jews of this figure, proving that Moses was not a Jew at all - this way, he effectively undermined the very [[unconscious ]] foundation of the [[anti-Semitism]]. And is it not that Serbs should today risk a similar act with regard to Kosovo as their precious [[object]]-treasure, the craddle of their [[civilization]], that which matters to them more than everything else and which they are never able to [[renounce]]? Therein resides the final [[limit ]] of the large majority of the so-called "democratic opposition" to the Milosevic regime: they unconditionally endorse Milosevic's anti-Albanian nationalist agenda, even accusing him of making compromises with the West and "betraying" Serb national interests in Kosovo. For this very reason, the sine qua non of an authentic act in Serbia today would be precisely to RENOUNCE the claim to Kosovo, to sacrifice the substantial attachment to the privileged object. (What we have here is thus a nice case of the political [[dialectic ]] of [[democracy]]: although democracy is the ultimate goal, in today's Serbia, any direct advocacy of democracy which leaves uncontested nationalistic claims about Kosovo is doomed to fail - THE issue apropos of which the struggle for democracy will be decided is that of Kosovo.)

In NATO-Yugoslav war, we thus have a double Realitaetsverleugnung: on the one hand, NATO [[fantasy ]] of war without casualties, surgical operation; on the other hand, the faked carnivalization totally [[disconnected ]] from the reality of what goes on down in Kosovo.

So, on the one hand, we have the obscenities of the Serb state propaganda: they regularily refer to Clinton not as "the American president," but as "the American Fuehrer"; two of the transparents on their state-organized anti-Nato demonstrations were "Clinton, come here and be our Monica!" (i.e. suck our...), and "Monica, did you suck out also his brain?". The atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnavalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic music on the streets, under the motto "With [[poetry ]] and music against bombs!", playing the role of the defying heroes (since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets and that, consequently, they are safe!). This is where the NATO planners got it wrong, caught in their schemes of strategic reasoning, unable to forecast that the Serb reaction to bombardment will be a recourse to a collective Bakhtinian carnivalization of the social life... This pseudo-authentic [[spectacle]], although it may fascinate some confused Leftists, is effectively the other, public, face of ethnic cleansing: in Belgrade people are defiantly dancing on the streets while, three hundred kilometers to the South, a genocide of African proportions is taking place... And the Western counterpoint to this obscenity is the more and more openly racist tone of its reporting: when the three American soldiers were taken prisoners, CNN dedicated the first 10 minutes of the News to their predicament (although everyone knew that NOTHING will happen to them!), and only then reported on the tens of thousands of refugees, burned villages and Pristina turning into a ghost town. Where is the so-much-praised Serb "democratic opposition" to protest THIS horror taking place in their own backyard, not only the - till now, at least, bombardments with relatively very low casualties?

The standard topic of critical [[psychiatry ]] is that a "madman" is not in himself mad, but rather functions as a kind of focal point in which the pathological tension which permeates the entire group (family) to which he belongs finds its outlet. The "madman" is the product of the group pathology, the symptomatic point in which the global pathology becomes visible - one can say that all other members of the group succeed in retaining (the appearance of) their sanity by condensing their patholoogy in (or by projecting it onto) the sacrificial figure of the madman, this exception who grounds the [[Global Order|global order ]] of group sanity. However, more interesting that this is the opposite case, exemplified by the life of Bertrand Russell: he lived till his death in his late 90s a long normal life, full of [[creativity ]] and "healthy" [[sexual ]] satisfactions, yet all people around him, all members of his larger family, seemed to be afflicted with some kind of madness - he had [[love ]] affairs with most of the wives of his sons, and most of his sons and other close relatives committed [[suicide]]. It is thus as if, in a kind of [[inversion ]] of the standard logic of group sanity guaranteed by the [[exclusion ]] of the "madman," here, we have the central figure who retained (the appearance of) his sanity by way of spreading his madness all around him, onto all his close relatives. The task of a critical analysis is here, of course, to demonstrate how the TRUE point of madness of this social network is precisely the only point which appears "sane," its central paternal figure who perceives madness everywhere around himself, but is unable to recognize IN HIMSELF its true source.

And does the same not hold for the predominant way the Serbs perceive their role today? On the one hand, one can argue that, for the West, Serbia is a symptomal point in which the [[repressed ]] truth of a more global situation violently breaks out. On the other hand, within ex-Yugoslavia, Serbs behaves as an island of sanity in the sea of nationalist/secessionist madness all around them, refusing to acknowledge even a part of responsibility. It is eye-opening to watch in the last days the Serb satellite state TV which targets foreign public: no reports on atrocities in Kosovo, refugees are mentioned only as people fleeing the NATO bombing; the overall idea is that Serbia, the island of peace, the only place in ex-Yugoslavia that was not touched by the war raging all around it, is attacked by the NATO madmen destroying bridges and hospitals...

No wonder, then, that the atmosphere in Belgrade is, at least for the time being, carnivalesque in a faked way - when they are not in shelters, people dance to rock or ethnic music on the streets, under the motto "With music against bombs!", playing the role of the defying victims (since they know that NATO does not really bomb civilian targets). Although it may fascinate some confused pseudo-Leftists, this obscene carnivalization of the social life is effectively the other, public, face of ethnic cleansing: while in Belgrade people defiantly dance on the streets, three hundred kilometers to the South, a genocide of African proportions is taking place. So when, in the nightime, crowds are camping out on the Belgrade bridges, participating in pop and ethnic music concerts held there in a defiantly festive mood, offering their bodies as the live shield to prevent the bridges from being bombed, the answer to this faked pathetic gesture should be a very simple one: why don't you go to Kosovo and make a rock carnival in the Albanian parts of Pristina? And when people are wearing papers with a "target" [[sign ]] printed on them, the obscene falsity of this gesture cannot but strike the eye: can one imagine [[The Real|the REAL ]] targets years ago in Sarajevo or now in Kosovo wearing such signs?

In what is this almost [[psychotic ]] [[refusal ]] to perceive one's responsibility grounded? During a recent visit to Israel, a friend told me a hilarious [[joke ]] about Clinton visiting Bibi Netanyahu: when, in Bibi's office, Clinton saw a mysterious blue phone, he asked Bibi what this phone is, and Bibi answered that it allows him to dial Him up there in the sky. Upon his return to the States, the envious Clinton demanded of his secret service to provide him such a phone at any cost. In two weeks, they deliver it and it works, but the phone bill is exorbitant - two million dollars for a one minute talk with Him up there. So Clinton furiously calls Bibi and complains: "How can you afford such a phone, if even we, who support you financially, cannot? Is this how you spend our [[money]]?" Bibi calmly answers: "No, it's not that - you see, for us, Jews, that call counts as a local call!" The problem with Serbs is that, in their self-perception, they tend more and more to imitate Jews and [[identify ]] themselves as the people for whom the phone call to God counts as a local call...

So where, in all this, is the much praised Serb "democratic opposition"? One shouldn't be too harsh of them: in the present situation of Serbia, of course, any attempt at public disagreement would probably trigger direct death [[threats]]. On the other hand, one should nonetheless notice that there was a certain limit that, as far as I know, even the most radical Serb democratic opposition was never able to trespass: the farthest they can go is to admit the monstrous nature of Serb nationalism and ethnic cleansing, but nonetheless to insist that Milosevic is ultimately just on in the series of the nationalist leaders who are to be blamed for the [[violence ]] of the last decade: Milosevic, Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Kucan, they are ultimately all the same... I am not claiming, agains such a [[vision]], that one should put all the blame on Serbs - my point is just that, instead of such pathetic-apolitical generalizations ("they are all mad, all to blame"), one should, more than ever, insist on a [[Concrete|CONCRETE ]] POLITICAL ANALYSIS of the power struggles that triggered the catastrophe. And it is the [[rejection ]] of such an analysis that accounts for the ultimate [[hypocrisy ]] of the pacifist attitude towards the Kosovo war: "the true victims are women and children on all sides, so stop the bombing, more violence never helped to end violence, it just pushes us deeper into the vortex..." There is nonetheless [[another]], more disturbing aspect to be discerned in this false carnivalization of the war in the Serb media. The usual Serb complaint is that, instead of confronting them face to face, as it befits brave soldiers, NATO are cowardly bombing them from distant ships and planes. And, effectively, the lesson here is that it is thoroughly false to claim that war is made less traumatic if it is no longer experienced by the soldiers (or presented) as an actual encounter with another human being to be killed, but as an abstract activity in fron of a [[screen]] or behind a gun far from the explosion, like guiding a missile on a war ship hundreds of miles away from where it will hit its target. While such a procedure makes the soldier less guilty, it is open to question if it effectively causes less [[anxiety]] - one way to explain the strange fact that soldiers often fantasize about killing the enemy in a face to face confrontation, [[looking]] him into the eyes before stabbing him with a bayonet (in a kind of military version of the sexual False [[Memory]] Syndrome, they even often "[[remember]]" such encounters when they never took place). There is a long [[literary]] [[tradition]] of elevating such face to face encounters as an authentic war experience (see the writings of Ernst Juenger, who praised them in his memoirs of the trench attacks in World War I). So what if the truly traumatic feature is NOT the [[awareness]] that I am killing another human being (to be obliterated through the "dehumanization" and "objectivization" of war into a technical procedure), but, on the contrary, this very "objectivization," which then generates the need to [[supplement]] it by the [[fantasies]] of authentic personal encounters with the enemy? It is thus not the fantasy of a purely aseptic war run as a video [[game]] behind computer screens that protects us from the reality of the face to face killing of another person; it is, on the opposite, this fantasy of a face to face encounter with an enemy killed in a bloody confrontation that we [[construct]] in order to escape the [[trauma]] of the depersonalized war turned into an anonymous technological [[apparatus]]. So is not the Serb carnivalization of the daily life also ein Abwehr-Mechanismus gegen die Kriegsmachinerie?

There is nonetheless another, more disturbing aspect to be discerned in this false carnivalization of the war in the Serb media. The usual Serb complaint is that, instead of confronting them face to face, as it befits brave soldiersTariq Ali, "Springtime for NATO are cowardly bombing them from distant ships and planes. And, effectively, the lesson here is that it is thoroughly false to claim that war is made less traumatic if it is no longer experienced by the soldiers " New [[Left]] Review 234 (or presented) as an actual encounter with another human being to be killed, but as an abstract activity in fron of a screen or behind a gun far from the explosion, like guiding a missile on a war ship hundreds of miles away from where it will hit its target. While such a procedure makes the soldier less guilty, it is open to question if it effectively causes less anxiety March- one way to explain the strange fact that soldiers often fantasize about killing the enemy in a face to face confrontation, looking him into the eyes before stabbing him with a bayonet (in a kind of military version of the sexual False Memory Syndrome, they even often "remember" such encounters when they never took placeApril 1999). There is a long literary tradition of elevating such face to face encounters as an authentic war experience (see the writings of Ernst Juenger, who praised them in his memoirs of the trench attacks in World War I)p. So what if the truly traumatic feature is NOT the awareness that I am killing another human being (to be obliterated through the "dehumanization" and "objectivization" of war into a technical procedure), but, on the contrary, this very "objectivization," which then generates the need to supplement it by the fantasies of authentic personal encounters with the enemy? It is thus not the fantasy of a purely aseptic war run as a video game behind computer screens that protects us from the reality of the face to face killing of another person; it is, on the opposite, this fantasy of a face to face encounter with an enemy killed in a bloody confrontation that we construct in order to escape the trauma of the depersonalized war turned into an anonymous technological apparatus70. So is not the Serb carnivalization of the daily life also ein Abwehr-Mechanismus gegen die Kriegsmachinerie?