Formålet_var_Milosevics_fall

From: Knut Rognes (knrognes@online.no)
Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 14:32:36 MET DST

  • Next message: Knut Rognes: "Israels_siste_håp"

    KK-Forum,

    om de diplomatiske muligheter FØR bombestarten 24. mars 1999.

    Knut Rognes

    *************''
     
    Published on Thursday, October 12, 2000 in the Colorado Springs Gazette
    Clinton Had A Chance To Avoid Kosovo Bombing
    by Alan J. Parrington
     
    Now that Slobodan Milosevic has been voted out of office, many in the
    Clinton Administration will be celebrating the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia
    as a completed moral victory. We were told after all, that the war was
    fought for humanitarian reasons - to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing -
    and that it was started only after all diplomatic efforts had failed. With
    Kosovo free and Milosevic vanquished, the war is finally won. It was a good
    war.

    As the U.S. Air Attaché in London at the time, I saw a different war, one
    not so flattering or altruistic. I saw a war of underlying motives, missed
    diplomatic opportunities, misguided military strategies and questionable
    outcomes. Worst of all, the war never need happened: Milosevic conceded
    major U.S. demands two weeks before the war began.

    On the evening of March 11, 1999, I was confronted by the Yugoslavian
    Defence Attaché to the Court of St. James at a British diplomatic reception
    and told, "Milosevic has decided to accept international, even NATO, troops
    in Kosovo, but he must first have (a) letter from Clinton explaining the
    benefits Yugoslavia will receive (in exchange)." I stood there silent,
    somewhat dumbfounded, as the deployment of foreign troops had been the
    sticking point in negotiations. The Serb colonel repeated his statement
    verbatim, questioning if I had understood the import of his message.

    "Yes," I assured him, "I understand perfectly, but what benefits are you
    talking about?"
    "I myself do not know," he answered, "But Holbrooke knows!"

    Richard Holbrooke, author of the Dayton Accord on Bosnia, had been
    shuttling back and forth to Belgrade trying to find a peaceful solution to
    the Kosovo crisis. He had left Belgrade the day before to consult with
    Washington and was due back in Yugoslavia that weekend. He apparently
    carried with him a detailed brief of the Milosevic offer.

    The timing, place and presence of other diplomats cut short my discussion
    with the Serb, but by coincidence I had dinner with him at the home of a
    fellow attaché a few days later. I asked if he had learned any more about
    the benefits he had spoken of during our last encounter. "I can only speak
    for myself," he answered, "but there are only three things Yugoslavia must
    have: Yugoslavia must keep sovereignty over Kosovo, the terrorists (i.e.
    the Kosovo Liberation Army) must be disarmed, and the referendum (on
    independence for Kosovo) must be removed." It was apparently too much for
    the Clinton Administration to accept as Holbrooke's shuttle diplomacy
    failed and the bombing began March 24.

    The war that was supposed to last three days ran into weeks, then months,
    and had all the appearances of lasting well into the future when,
    ironically, Russia stepped in and brokered a peace. The war ended June 10
    with the United Nations accepting responsibility for Kosovo. When I read
    the agreement, I was not surprised to see the three Yugoslavian demands had
    been met or that each side had spun the agreement into a victory for their
    side. Such is the nature of 20th-century politics. But I began to wonder
    why it had the taken so much blood to come back to the same starting point
    as before the war began. There were lots of explanations I reasoned, but
    none that fit the scenario comfortably, save one.

    I came to the conclusion - hypothesis really - that the war had not been
    about humanitarian issues at all. Like most wars it had been about
    politics. In this case, the objective all along had been to get rid of
    Milosevic, Europe's last reigning communist, and whose virulent nationalism
    had set the region ablaze, sending millions of refugees fleeing to the West
    where they were not wanted or welcomed.
    It was difficult to gauge when Milosevic became the target of the
    administration's Balkan policy, perhaps as early as 1995 following the
    debacle in Bosnia. State appointments and initiatives from that time seem
    to support that theory. In any case, it all hinged on cornering the Serb
    leader in a war he could not win and for whom capitulation or defeat would
    spell disaster. Milosevic's Waterloo was thought to be Kosovo, his Achilles
    heel to be bombing. This is where the strategy went awry.
    It is one of the enduring myths of the 20th century that strategic bombing
    will compel a weak power to throw in the towel and dump an unpopular
    leader. In practice, the opposite has always been true and even the most
    unpopular dictators have been made into national heroes by the symbiotic
    logic that befalls strategic bombardment. Most American administrations,
    captured by the omnipotence of their own polls, have been slow to grasp
    this reality and have repeatedly reached for the strategic bomber or
    missile as an easy way to avoid hard choices.

    The Clinton administration was no different. Three days at most, it was
    claimed, and Milosevic will be history. But in Yugoslavia, as in Iraq and
    elsewhere, the bombing backfired and rallied disparate Serbian political
    parties around a common foreign enemy. After 11 weeks of bombing, the
    administration, running short of precision weapons and faced with the
    prospect of a bloody ground war, abandoned the bombing strategy and asked
    the Russians to broker a deal based upon Milosevic's antebellum offer. The
    war achieved no more than was offered by Milosevic at the beginning and
    only inflamed ethnic passions for generations to come.

    It is a Pyrrhic victory to now claim that the bombing served its purpose.
    Kosovo remains a part of Yugoslavia, the independence referendum has been
    cancelled, ethnic cleansing continues (albeit reversed in terms of
    nationalities), and NATO has been stuck with the impossible task of
    disarming the KLA. As one KLA leader told me, "One day the Serbs will be
    selling us guns to shoot at NATO!" Even new Yugoslavian President Vojislav
    Kostunica has been quoted as saying, "We cannot forget what some countries
    did to us last year during the NATO bombing."

    Benjamin Franklin believed that there is no such thing as a good war, nor
    is there a bad peace. Democratic forces brought about Milosevic's demise,
    not bombs or bullets. Milosevic was widely hated before the war ever began.
    Advocates of the Clinton doctrine might think on these dilemmas and well
    consider the old sage's advice before launching any new moralistic
    adventures. War is at best a necessary evil that should be invoked only in
    the most extreme of situations. Getting rid of Milosevic was not one of them.

    Alan J. Parrington, of Monument, Colorado, served as U.S. air attaché to
    the Court of St. James in London during the Kosovo campaign. He retired
    from the Air Force with the rank of colonel at the beginning of this year.
    Copyright 1999-2000, The Gazette, a Freedom Communications, Inc. Company
    ###
     
    Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service
    providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community.
    FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which
    has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
    making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
    environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
    and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of
    any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
    Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material
    on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
    prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
    educational purposes. For more information go to:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use
    copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
    'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
    NewsCenter | NewsWire
    Search | Contacting Us | Sign-Up | Privacy
     
     
     
     
     
    Tell Us What You Think: editor@newscenter.org
    Making News?: news@newscenter.org
    © Copyrighted 1997-2000 All Rights Reserved. Common Dreams.
    www.commondreams.org
    ***********************************



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 14:34:26 MET DST