78
PARTISAN REVIEW
is that the Clinton Administration can't make up its mind what to do
because it's afraid of public opinion. There's a certain amount of public
opinion that's simply isolationist, but there's another sector of public
opinion, which seems to be supported by military experts, asserting that
no intervention will help unless it's so enormous that it can't be
undertaken. And the reason given is that the situation in the former
Yugoslavia is so complex that no military action can disentangle the
various forces and stop the slaughter. I think that's one reason why many
of us have hesitated to take a bold and positive stand. Now, what do you
think? Is there any truth in this argument that the situation is so complex
that intervention by Americans alone or Americans with European troops
won't do any good? Is that a false argument?
Slavenka Drakulic:
I think it's a false argument. I think that a proper
number of troops and proper military action could stop it, but I think it
has to go along with other measures to solve the problem, to be very
simple on that point.
David Sidorsky:
I'd like to support your hesitation about intervention
from the United States, but on different grounds, because I agree entirely
with Joanna Rose that the only grounds for American intervention is
what would be called humanitarian intervention. And indeed it's precisely
that, because the intervention would have to be so large that you're
speaking about significant casualties. The Serbs are going to fight back;
they're going to kill people. And then, too, people pay a price for
humanitarian intervention without any national interest - that's usually a
compelling reason why people say countries should intervene only where
there is a national interest - unless they are part of a large consort of
nations, usually the case with humanitarian intervention, in which
situation you assume that the casualties would be minimal.
The second comment has to do with your reference to a "principled
solution." There is no principled solution in one sense of the word
"principle," because there are only two principles here, federation and
secession. Now, you do not wish, I assume, to force a refederation: you
supported the Croatian unilateral secession, you support Slovenia's
unilateral secession, presumably you support Bosnia-Herzegovina's
unilateral secession. The alternative then is to accept the principle of
secession, and never cross boundaries against a seceded state. Someone
should have taught this to the Union vis-a-vis the Confederacy.
Jan Kavan:
I'm not sure if I agree with your explanation that Europe is
not going in with a resolution to stop the slaughtering simply because the
European powers, Britain, France, Germany and so on, cannot agree
