Previous posts in this discussion:
Post
SERBIA, KOSOVO, ALBANIA (Ronald Hilton, USA, 05/08/99 3:15 am)Robert Gard says:
I find Tom Moore's analysis persuasive. It is not sensible to
corner a wolf, issue him an ultimatum, and refuse to negotiate. As I
understand it, M gagged only on the NATO occupation force. Now we speak
of an "international" troop presence; too bad we didn't do so at the
outset. [ M is reported to have specified that it must not include
troops from NATO countries. RH]
Let's hope that the
Russians can broker something acceptable to both sides so that we can
stop what has turned into a desperate attempt to make life suffiently
miserable for the civilians in Yugoslavia that they will demand that M
fold. [There is a third side, the Russian one; Russia is not
impartial.RH.]
Our immculate conception of warfare, by
bombing from high altitudes, plus an apparently irresponsible
intelligence effort guarantees "collateral damage" and the death of
scores of civilians.
My comment: How does one deal
with a wolf? I want to add my own comment on Tom Moore´s disputing my
claim that the example of Northern Ireland justifies the plan to offer
the Kosovars a chance to vote on their future status. I still think
that in general such a procedure is valid, but the case of Kosovo and
Albania is special for two reasons:
1. The Curse of
History. Each side has its own version of history. the Serbian version
claims that in World War II the Mussolini-Hitler axis forcibly expelled
hundreds of thousands of Serbs from their historic Kosovo home. Serbs
became a minority as 375,000 of them were expelled and 1 million
Albanians moved in. The Serbs are reclaiming their land. Is this Serb
version correct?
2. Crime. In a long article,
"Albanan Clans Trying to Take Over Kosovo Crime Network" (S.F.
Chronicle, 5/11/99), Frank Viviano, an excellent reporter, claims that
rival Albanian and Kosovan drug gangs vie for control. If this is so,
NATO must to put it mildly be very careful.
Visits: 1