SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11423)6/10/1999 10:44:00 AM
From: John Lacelle  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 17770
 
Hey George,

I thought it was kind of funny that the US Marines had
to land on a beach in Greece. I guess they just were
not welcome in that nice port Piraeus. I wonder if they
are going to get "the treatment" as those convoys pass
through Macedonia. Could be a lot of eggs, tomatoes,
and obscene gestures from the people lining the route.

-John

BTW, I spent a month in Greece once. What a great country.
I sailed around some of the Islands, visited Delphi and
Athens. Great people, great food, great history. I hope
they never change...



To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11423)6/10/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: goldsnow  Respond to of 17770
 
'Marshall Plan' for Balkans discussed
By Christopher Lockwood, Diplomatic Editor, in Cologne



Serb peace deal as Nato offers to halt bombing

MINISTERS from Europe, America, Russia and Japan were last night
finalising details for what is being called the "Marshall Plan for the Balkans". It
will be the most ambitious package of reconstruction seen on the continent
since America rebuilt it under the European Recovery Programme devised by
secretary of state George Marshall in the aftermath of the Second World
War.

This afternoon, at an extraordinary congress being held in Cologne, 36
countries and a dozen international institutions come together to launch a
stability pact which aims to bring peace, development and democracy to
Europe's neglected south-eastern corner, the source of so much bloodshed
and instability since 1989. Sums of the order of £5 billion a year are being
talked of for the region for many years to come, German sources say.

But critics note that not a penny has actually been pledged. America is
reluctant to pay, and the European Union, on whom the burden will fall, is
strapped for cash, its largest member, Germany already grappling with a
spiralling budget deficit. As ever, the nations involved have so far been more
interested in setting up committees than in digging into their pockets.

Under the chairmanship of Germany, which currently leads the G8 group of
industrialised nations, a detailed blueprint for the pact will be adopted by the
assembled ministers. Britain is a strong supporter of the plan, which was
originally proposed in April, while the bombing of Yugoslavia was at its
height.

The pact aims first to redress the economic damage the war has brought to
Serbia's neighbours, and secondly to help ensure increased prosperity in the
hope that this will reduce the danger of further instability in the region. It will
cost billions of pounds, and run for many years, though none of the figures has
yet been firmly established.

German sources say that the money involved will be of the order of £3-5
billion a year. Beneficiaries of the pact, which senior British ministers admit
will have to be largely paid for by the EU, will be all of Yugoslavia's
neighbours: Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary,
Romania and Bulgaria.

Excluded will be Serbia itself. Senior British officials underline that until
Slobodan Milosevic is gone, it is highly unlikely that any significant amount of
western money will go to the state he presides over, though Serbia's sister
Yugoslav republic, Montenegro, could well be eligible.

An early draft of the Stability Pact, however fails to make it clear that a
change of regime is necessary before Yugoslavia could be included, but
America and Britain are thought to be pushing to have this toughened up.
However, senior officials recognise that it will probably be necessary to
provide a bare minimum of aid to Serbia, for strictly humanitarian reasons.

Help will have to be given towards repairing bombed power stations, since
otherwise the Yugoslav people, with whom Nato says it has no quarrel, will
face a grim Balkan winter. And the Danube will have to be cleared of the
obstructions to shipping caused by the bridges that Nato bombs have brought
crashing into the river. They affect not only Yugoslavia but Bulgaria and
Romania too.

Also not included in the aid programme is Kosovo itself. Until Nato forces
enter the province, it is impossible to assess what its needs will be, and a
separate "pledging conference" for Kosovo will have to be held in a few
months' time. The immediate needs of returning refugees will be met out of
existing humanitarian and emergency budgets.

The stability pact will be administered by a co-ordinator, likely to be a former
leader of Austria's conservative People's Party, Erhard Busek, and will be
charged not only with overseeing economic aid to the Balkans, but also with
democratisation, human rights and security issues.

Marcus Warren in Moscow writes: Russia's offer to provide a substantial
part of the international peacekeeping force for Kosovo will place the
country's finances under severe strain. Prickly obsession with retaining its
"great power" status appears to have won over more mundane considerations
such as who will pay.

The number of combat-ready soldiers - up to 10,000 - to be sent to
Yugoslavia is far higher than the 2,000-plus that most military experts had
assumed was feasible. According to General Gennady Shpak, commander of
Russia's airborne troops, almost 2,500 paratroopers are ready to fly to
Kosovo.

However, any suspicion that Russian troops will end up taking orders from
Nato would be politically explosive and might even lead to parliament vetoing
their deployment.
telegraph.co.uk



To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11423)6/10/1999 8:13:00 PM
From: goldsnow  Respond to of 17770
 
Provisional
composition of NATO
peacekeeping force
01:00 p.m Jun 10, 1999 Eastern

LONDON, June 10 (Reuters) -
Some 50,000 troops are expected
to take part in KFOR, NATO's
peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Its
tentative composition, according to
member defence ministries, is as
follows:

++ Britain to provide 13,000
troops, KFOR's largest contingent.
British paratroopers are expected
to be the among the first troops
into Kosovo. Some 5,500 British
troops from the Royal Gurkha
Rifles, the Parachute Regiment and
the Irish Guards are already in the
region. Some 4,000 more troops
are moving this week and the rest
should be in place within a couple
of weeks.

++ Russia has pledged to send up
to 10,000 troops, which it wants
to operate under Russian
command.

++ The U.S. has committed 7,000
infantry, engineers and armour to
KFOR and says these are
expected to be in eastern Kosovo
(U.S. sector) within 30 days. An
initial force of 4,000 -- 1,900
Marines now moving through
Greece into Macedonia, 1,700
troops from Apache Task force in
Tirana and another 400 soldiers
from Europe -- will be moving in
from a gathering point north of
Skopje almost immediately. That
initial force will be replaced in
coming weeks with 7,000 U.S.
Army troops and armour, mostly
based in Germany. The initial force
will include eight Apache
helicopters from Tirana and four
Cobra attack helicopters.

++ France is to send 7,000
troops, with 15 Leclerc main battle
tanks, eight self-propelled 155 mm
guns, 120 mortars, AMX-10 P
fighting armoured vehicles,
AMX-10 RC wheeled light tanks,
engineers, armoured bulldozers, 20
Puma transport helicopters, eight
Gazelle tank-killing helicopters.
Some 3,000-3,500 are currently
on standby in Macedonia and
2,500 are on their way or will be in
the next few days.

++ Germany has agreed to send
2,500 extra troops to the Balkans
bringing its total to 8,500
depending on parliamentary
approval. Germany has on standby
32 Marder armoured troop
carriers, 33 Leopard 2 battle
tanks, 62 Fuchs armoured
transport vehicles, 24 Luchs
armoured reconnaissance vehicles,
12 air transportable Weasel
armoured vehicles, two engineer
armoured vehicles, two bridge
laying tanks and two mine
clearance tanks.

++ Italy has pledged to commit
4,000-5,000 Italian troops to the
peacekeeping force, of which
around half will be infantry. Italy
will also send an armoured
regiment, a helicopter squadron,
artillery, battalion engineers and a
signal battalion.

++ Netherlands is to send 2,050
soldiers, to be deployed mainly
within a German-Dutch brigade.
Some 800 men will join the Field
Artillery and the rest serve in
supporting units. The Netherlands
has also offered to supply a
combined engineering/humanitarian
unit of some 1,000 people. Some
750 Dutch members of Bosnia's
NATO-led Stabilisation Force
(SFOR) have been asked to be
strategic reserves for KFOR.

++ Spain says it will send up to
1,200 troops.

++ Denmark will contribute a
700-850 man armoured infantry
battalion. The Danish force will
consist of three fighting units, a
tank squadron of 10 Leopard main
battle tanks and two armoured
infantry companies equipped with
armoured vehicles carrying heavy
and light machine guns.

++ Finland plans to send one
battalion of 800 peacekeepers.

++ Greece is expected to send
about 800 troops and
administrative staff, including two
mechanised battallions, medical
units, support staff.

++ Sweden hopes to send about
900 soldiers.

++ Ukraine is ready to send 1,300
peacekeepers if asked.

++ Austria is to send contingent of
450, seen ready in 90 days.

++ Czech Republic plans to send
150 troops.

++ Dubai expects to contribute
100-200 personnel.

++ Romania is to send 250
peacekeepers, an engineers unit
and a field hospital.

SFOR - Bosnia

2,500 soldiers, of which 2,100 is
the army contingent, 400 at the
multinational Headquarters

AFOR - Albania

600 soldiers stationed for
humanitarian reasons.

Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited.
All rights reserved.





To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11423)6/11/1999 5:50:00 PM
From: goldsnow  Respond to of 17770
 
What happened to you get what you pay for?

NATO Grapples With Cost
Of Keeping Peace In
Kosovo
11:06 a.m. Jun 11, 1999 Eastern

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
NATO allies are coming to grips
with reality -- keeping the peace in
Kosovo will cost them far more
than the 11-week air war.

The bombing campaign against
Yugoslavia has cost NATO
countries $3 billion to $5 billion,
the bulk of which will be borne by
the United States, according to
defense analysts.

But far more money will be needed
to fund peacekeeping operations,
and to rebuild roads and bridges
damaged or destroyed by the air
strikes, setting the stage for a battle
within the NATO alliance over
paying the bill.

''In terms of costs, it's just the
beginning,'' said Steven Kosiak, an
analyst with the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, a U.S.-based think
tank.

By all accounts, NATO's air war
against Yugoslavia hasn't been
cheap. Each cruise missile cost $1
million; tank-busting munitions
from $130,000 to $300,000;
laser-guided bombs up to
$100,000 apiece.

For the operation the United
States has deployed some 1,000
aircraft and 24 Apache attack
helicopters, 18 multiple launch
rocket system artillery pieces and
some 5,500 supporting Army
troops. It will also pay most of the
bill -- up to $3 billion according to
analysts. European allies will split
the rest.

But keeping the peace will be even
more costly.

NATO has yet to put a price tag
on its plan to base a 50,000-troop
peacekeeping force in Kosovo to
protect ethnic Albanian refugees as
they return to whatever's left of
their homes.

According to the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, the United States
alone will spend up to $3.5 billion
a year to deploy 7,000 U.S.
peacekeepers.

Germany's defense ministry
expects its 8,500 peacekeeping
troops to cost 580 million marks
(about $310 million) in 1999.
France could spend 3 billion to 4
billion francs ($480 million to $640
million) this year to fund its
7,000-strong contingent in the
peace force and its share of the air
strikes.

That does not include
reconstruction, which could cost
Western powers far more than the
peace force.

Europe's External Relations
Commissioner Hans van den
Broek estimated the cost of
rebuilding Kosovo will at least
match the $5 billion needed to
rebuild Bosnia after four years of
war there.

A recent EU estimate put the cost
of economic reconstruction in the
Balkans at up to $30 billion.

Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Macedonia and Romania will
require $2.2 billion in assistance,
according to the International
Monetary Fund and the World
Bank.

''When you sit down and do the
math, you see there are going to be
more people involved in keeping
the peace than in fighting the war,''
said defense expert John Pike of
the Federation of American
Scientists. ''These people are also
going to be involved in keeping the
peace for years, as opposed to
fighting the war for weeks.''

Foreign ministers from Group of
Eight nations have already started
work on a ''Marshall Plan'' to
rebuild the region. Group of Seven
finance ministers will discuss
reconstruction at a meeting in
Germany this weekend, said
outgoing U.S. Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin.

''Clearly the international financial
institutions should be deeply
involved in bearing the cost of this,
the European Union and its
members obviously should be
deeply involved and we'll do
what's appropriate,'' Rubin said.

President Clinton told reporters he
expected European states to
shoulder the largest share of the
rebuilding costs, adding: ''I don't
want us to get into a haggling
situation.''

But analysts said a dispute
between the United States and
Europe was inevitable.

Congressional leaders have
already insisted that Europe foot
the bill.

''It is time that our friends in
Europe begin to pick up the cost
of rebuilding and peacekeeping,''
said House Speaker Dennis
Hastert, an Illinois Republican.

Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware
Democrat, agreed: ''It is their
responsibility. They will greatly
benefit from a reconstructed and
more unified South Eastern
Europe. And I wish them well.''

U.S. lawmakers also want to limit
how the money is spent. The
Senate voted this week to bar
reconstruction funding as long as
Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic remained in power.

Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited.
All rights reserved.




To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11423)6/11/1999 6:42:00 PM
From: goldsnow  Respond to of 17770
 
Victors quibble over
peace bill

By Joanne Gray, Washington

The war in Yugoslavia may be over, but the victors are
now grappling with how to fund peace in the region.

The international community is sharply divided on
whether Serbia should get international funds for the task
of reconstruction while Slobodan Milosevic continues as
Yugoslav President. Uncertainty over the future of the
man the West regards as a war monger may result in an
international political stalemate which could delay
reconstruction for some time.

Europe and the US agree that a mini-Marshall plan for
the Balkans akin to the reconstruction of Europe after
World War II is needed. But although they are keen to
rebuild Kosovo, the US and Britain have argued
forcefully that Serbia should not receive any
reconstruction or humanitarian aid while the Milosevic
regime is intact. With the country in ruins, they believe
that withholding funds may help fuel local anger with
Milosevic and precipitate a change of power.

"He is a real obstacle in the minds of some governments,"
said Ms Kathleen Newland, a senior associate at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There are
going to be some pretty difficult negotiations around that
issue. Some of the participating governments feel Serbia
shouldn't get a dime as long as Milosevic is in power."

In contrast, Italy, Greece and some other European
countries believe the alienation of Milosevic has gone too
far, and that experience in post-conflict situations has
shown that generosity in victory has paid off for the
international community.

So far, there are no reliable estimates of how much the
reconstruction effort will cost, but guesses vary wildly
between $US30 billion ($45 billion) and $US150 billion.
The Yugoslav Government has said that its damages bill
alone will reach $US100 billion, while European officials
say it may be closer to $US30 billion.

The US and Europe are expected to start talks next
week on funding a stability pact, while World Bank
advisers are scheduled to visit Kosovo next week to
begin calculating the damages bill.

The reconstruction effort will not just include repairing
bombed infrastructure such as bridges, electricity systems
and housing. There will also have to be funding for the
more immediate concerns of preparing for the return of
up to 1 million refugees and for demining the region.
Yugoslavia's neighbours also have suffered from shrinking
economies, disrupted trade and huge declines in tourism.

Before the war, the Yugoslav economy had been
squeezed by almost eight years of economic sanctions.
Economists estimate that it could take 45 years for
Yugoslavia to return to 1989 prosperity levels unless it
receives massive international aid. Without help, gross
domestic product per capita could fall to levels similar to
those at the start of the century. The country's pre-war
gross national product of $US20 billion is expected to fall
by at least 30 per cent this year. Neighbours Bosnia and
Macedonia could see their economies shrink by 10 per
cent.

And then there is the question of where the money will
come from.

The US argues that because it bore a large share of the
cost of the war estimated to be as much as $US15 billion
Europe should bear the brunt of the reconstruction bill.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank,
as well as the United Nations Development Program and
the UN High Commission for Refugees also will
contribute to the repair bill.

The Group of Seven ministers will discuss reconstruction
funding in Cologne over the weekend. US Treasury
secretary Robert Rubin said the World Bank and the
IMF would have to carry much of the burden, along with
the European Union.

This scenario is complicated by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia not being a member of the World Bank
group. It also owes the bank more than $US1 billion.
Usually, the bank will not lend to countries which are in
arrears, although it has fudged on that issue in the past.

afr.com.au