I fully understand the concerns of U.S. Representatives: they are aware that the U.S. might find themselves ''holding the bag'' in the Balkans and they don't want to risk the lives of their fellow Americans for a lost cause. Hence, the problem is NATO's cohesion.
It's one thing to go ahead in the face of Russia: all the U.S. have to do is sending Camdessus off to Moscow with a fat ''compensation''; but it's a whole new ballgame when your own alleged ''team mates'' are double-dealing!
Can the U.S. afford to go ahead alone, or flanked by the Brits, in Kosovo?? Can they manage without Europe's full and loyal commitment to get rid of Milosevic? Yet, even if they can: is it worth it?? I mean the so-called ethical objective of this whole NATO operation is to restore democracy in the Balkans, isn't it? And who'll benefit from this? The American people who live 10,000 miles away from Pristina? Or is it the European people who must show the world they've once and for all finished with fascism?
From a philosophical standpoint, it becomes even more mind-challenging: why have WWII U.S. soldiers died for, after all? They died on Normandy's beaches to restore a democratic Europe and 60 years later, their grandsons must come back. The difference is that 60 years ago there were Montgomery, de Gaulle and suchlike while today there's only a resentful European bourgeoisie who doesn't want to be ''saved'' once again...
Gustave. |
