The New World Disorder

DELIVER US FROM EVIL

Peacekeepers, Warlords, and a World of Endless Conflict

By William Shawcross
Simon & Schuster 447pp $27.50
THE NEW MILITARY HUMANISM

Lessons from Kosovo
By Noam Chomsky
Common Courage 199pp $15.95

[...] `There is never an easy answer as to why the spotlight of international concern focuses more on some conflicts than others,'' Shawcross writes. In The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky disagrees vigorously with this assertion. And ``vigorous'' hardly does justice to the force of his argument: Reading Chomsky is like standing in a wind tunnel. With relentless logic, Chomsky bids us to listen closely to what our leaders tell us--and to discern what they are leaving out. The answers become clear enough, he says. The catch is they won't be the ones we want to hear. ``One of the hardest things to do is look in the mirror,'' Chomsky writes. ``It is also one of the most important things to do.''

Kosovo, site of the Western alliance's most recent intervention, is Chomsky's template. You can't put Western conduct down to humanitarianism, he says, when the West tolerates (or supports) equivalent (or worse) offenses in Turkey's war against the Kurds, or Colombia's anti-insurgent drive. NATO bombing may have brought Milosevic to his knees in Belgrade, but Chomsky makes a good case that it was against international law, that it could have been avoided via diplomacy, and that it was motivated by national and NATO self-interest rather than moral concern. As Chomsky sees it, the issue was credibility: The bombs were meant to consolidate NATO and stand as a threat to others who would defy it. Humanitarian intent? A fig leaf, as Chomsky sees it, a euphemism employed by everyone from the American Puritans to Stalin and Hitler. Limiting the impunity of dictators is a fine idea, he argues, but who gets the job? His answer is not dissimilar to Shawcross': What's needed is a strong international framework to which all nations are subject. But he's less optimistic about whether that is within our grasp. ``The world is ruled by force,'' Chomsky writes, ``under a veil of moral purpose woven by the educated classes, who, as throughout history, preach eloquently about `a landmark in international relations,' a `new era' of justice and righteousness under the courageous leadership of the enlightened states, by accident their own.''

Chomsky, as he often does, has a voice problem. He is shrill and sarcastic - chiefly because he's angry with what he sees as rampant American hypocrisy. The strident tone and unyielding criticism long ago landed him in the Siberia of American discourse. It's an undeserved fate. What Chomsky has to say is fully as legitimate as what Shawcross has to tell us. He is certainly correct as to the price Americans pay for ignoring history and failing to see themselves as others see them. If there is anything new about our age, it is that the questions Chomsky raises will eventually have to be answered. Agree with him or not, we lose out by not listening.