News Release

China and the Bombing Campaign


Author of Red Cat, White Cat: China and the Contradictions of ‘Market Socialism’, Weil said: “The anger in China is widespread and is no doubt very genuine. Either it will stiffen the Chinese government reaction to the U.S., which would have its own serious consequences; or they won’t stand up to the U.S., which might result in a domestic backlash. There’s widespread feeling in China that the U.S. is bullying them, practicing gunboat diplomacy and this may be a final straw. There’s already a lot of political discontent about the economic situation — the increased class polarization, unemployment, corruption and crime. The government might tap into the reaction to the embassy bombing, but will be nervous about protests going too far. But the domestic discontent could fuse with a sense of China being weakened internationally. Such feelings in the past in China have led to radical movements for social change.”

Naiman, who is research associate with the Preamble Center, has organized a petition of American Jews urging the Green Party of Germany (which is part of the coalition government and is meeting tomorrow) to oppose the war and reject analogies to the Nazi Holocaust. The petition, signed by over 200 prominent American Jews, states: “The Holocaust is being invoked in order to justify an unjust bombing campaign against the civilian population of Yugoslavia. Many of us have friends who lost family members in the Holocaust, or have lost relatives ourselves. We are deeply aware of our own history and the need for the world community to intervene in situations where there is a threat of genocide, in order to prevent it. However, this is clearly not what is happening in Yugoslavia today. We do not believe that our government’s war against Yugoslavia is motivated by humanitarian concerns. This is evidenced by their refusal to airlift food and water to desperate refugees within Kosovo, as well as the paltry sums allocated for refugee relief as compared to the billions of dollars spent on the bombing. The Clinton Administration’s great reluctance to pursue a negotiated solution to the conflict also indicates that this intervention is mainly about power: showing the world that the United States (and NATO, which it largely controls) is the self-appointed international policeman, and stands above international law…”
More Information

Professor of sociology at West Virginia University and author of The Lessons of the Vietnam War, Starr said: “In President Clinton’s current game of international jeopardy, bombing is his answer, but what is the question? In recent months, Clinton has rejected a world ban on land mines and a proposal for an international criminal court. He has committed intentional acts of war on four separate nations (Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia) and ignored United Nations mediation and peacekeeping forces in favor of a bombing campaign by a military alliance left over from the Cold War. Whatever the claimed justification, I don’t think the President’s question could be ‘How do we promote peace and human rights in the world?’ — but it should be ours.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167