Ron,
Even if I disagree with it, the opinion of those who support the prolongation of NATO's action need to be respected.
Because of mass murders going on in Kosovo, there is indeed a case for comparing Milosevic to Hitler. Both men are absolutely ruthless, and criminal, but this can be said about many dictators.
Something essential that I believe distinguishes them is that Milosevic does not advocate genocide, and we should recognize that this has a bearing on NATO's actions.
If a genocide was going on in Kosovo, no one would be wondering about sending ground troops. We would already have troops on the ground fighting.
The best way to help the Kosovar at this point, IMO, is to be realistic : we have to abandon some of the conditions put forward by NATO, and negotiate based on the situation on the ground. Time is playing against NATO and the Kosovars.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO faces stark choices in the Kosovo war
BY JOHN DONNELLY
Knight Ridder News Service
WASHINGTON -- NATO faces stark choices in the coming days in the Kosovo war, and none looks good.
The alliance could reach a diplomatic solution with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic that is less than it wants. If talks fall apart, NATO could remain firm in its demands and try to escalate the war by sending in ground troops. Or it could hold to a middle course and hope the daily bombing will cause Milosevic to capitulate before the alliance unravels.
The last option, say diplomats and Balkan experts in the United States and Europe, is dangerous. For one thing, bombs miss at times, including the ones Thursday that left a Belgrade hospital in ruins, killing three, and that damaged the residences of the Spanish and Swedish ambassadors. And two months of attacks haven't buckled the Serbian troops in any serious way.
Bombing for months more could destabilize Macedonia, Albania and the Yugoslav republic of Montenegro and worsen the crisis involving the ethnic Albanians who have fled Kosovo. NATO started its air war with the goal of avoiding those two things, and if the refugees can't go home or the conflict spreads, its failure will be plain.
Amid the flurry of diplomatic negotiations in Belgrade, Helsinki, Finland, Moscow, Washington and Bonn, Germany, a deal might emerge in the next two weeks. Many hurdles remain, including the obstacles of intra-NATO squabbling, NATO-Russian differences and, ultimately, Milosevic's acceptance to terms.
But NATO certainly wants to end a war it initially thought would be over in a few days. Milosevic, too, might be ready to deal, but he doesn't look as pliable as NATO's negotiators, say analysts.
''The side that is going to do the moving is NATO, and that's because time isn't on NATO's side,'' said Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
''They will have the choice of increasing the means to get to its goals, by sending in ground troops, or decreasing the objectives,'' said Kupchan, who also was a director for European affairs at the National Security Council during President Clinton's first term.
Time is NATO's foe when it comes to resettling nearly 800,000 ethnic Albanians who have fled the Serb province of Kosovo in the last two months. Winter begins as early as October, and NATO officials say a peacekeeping force must move into the province by August if it is to bring home the deported Kosovars before the first snow.
''There is not too much hope for peace at the moment,'' said Janine Calic, a Balkans historian and political scientist at the Research Institute for International Affairs, a private foundation in Ebenhausen, Germany. ''If Milosevic didn't change his mind, and the Serbs still stick to the same positions as before, there won't be a deal.''
NATO, said Calic, who worked at the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, faces increasing criticism in Germany, Italy and Greece for its air attacks. In Greece, one poll shows 97 percent oppose the bombing campaign, and 64 percent back Milosevic.
''Milosevic knows this, of course,'' she said. ''He is well aware there is a growing problem for NATO.''
In Washington and Brussels, Belgium, the NATO headquarters, the perspective is far different. Officials believe they are seeing the first cracks among Serbian troops, citing as evidence the desertion of about 500 troops in the 7th Armored Brigade. NATO spokesmen also say that anti-war demonstrations have broken out in three southern Serbian cities -- Cacak, Aleksandrovic and Krusevac.
In addition, a handful of Serbian leaders close to Milosevic have indicated the Yugoslav government is ready to deal.
Reading Belgrade's signals, though, is an inexact art, and some believe that judging the government's actions on a daily basis is the wisest course.
In that respect, there's no letup in the Serbian war on what it considers the holy ground of Kosovo, home to many Serbian Orthodox Christian sites. Serbian atrocities are still being reported by ethnic Albanians who escape into neighboring Albania or Macedonia; Serb troops continue to fight the guerrilla Kosovo Liberation Army; and U.S. intelligence reports show Serb troops are reinforcing their positions, rather than leaving the area as promised earlier this month.
In addition, Serb forces have been able to control the flow of ethnic Albanians as easily as if they were turning a water spigot on and off. Analysts say that doesn't suggest the Serbs are hunkered down in bunkers, fearful that NATO's bombers will find them. Rather, it suggests a ruling Serb presence on the ground, they say.
Recently, a number of ideas have sprung from the 19- country NATO alliance, and beyond, to end the fighting.
The list of diplomats who want to negotiate with Milosevic has never been short. The main track was in Moscow late Thursday, as Russian special envoy Victor Chernomyrdin, fresh from a seven-hour meeting with Milosevic in Belgrade, met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari.
If the current talks with Milosevic do not result in a cease-fire, NATO will turn to the contentious issue of sending in ground troops.
A Clinton administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said President Clinton's declaration Tuesday that no option was off the table was meant as the first sign of a threat of ground troops.
''Who knows what will happen next here,'' the official said, ''but it was a deliberate decision to say that then. He wants to increase the pressure on Milosevic.''
But issuing threats presents the problem of follow-through, and not all NATO allies would go along with ground troops. The U.S. official said the alliance could possibly get around the issue by allowing countries to ''opt out'' of an invasion force.
Still, the idea of sending ground troops into Kosovo now seems farfetched. It comes down to a judgment of risk, and NATO countries are taking few chances with their troops.
Kupchan, the Council on Foreign Affairs analyst, believes now is the time for Clinton and other alliance leaders to assess how much risk they are willing to take for the Kosovar Albanians.
''Clinton really needs to reflect on this in a deep way, and if he really thinks that he won't go to ground troops, then he can't afford not to get a deal with Milosevic now. The status quo is untenable, and to say we are going to keep bombing until it succeeds is really irresponsible.''
Kupchan continued: ''If ground troops were around the corner, we'd be seeing a lot more missions at 1,500 feet, rather than 15,000 feet, and there would be a willingness to put more pilots at risk as a kind of a last gasp before ground troops.''
Talks are set to resume Monday in Belgrade. Milosevic then sets the agenda.
''You never know, Milosevic may wake up tomorrow and decide he wants peace now,'' said Calic, the German analyst. ''But it is not very probable. If he is prepared for peace, we will know it. He will stop his military.''
Regards.
|
