Just for the record, US administration spokespersons are claiming that those sections of the Rambouillet Accords allowing general access to all of Yugoslavia were for the purpose of insuring that NATO troops could cross other parts of Yugoslavia to get to Kosovo-Metohija without any obstruction. I would certainly agree, however, that it is very easy to conclude that this is not what it is really about, although I am skeptical that the US really had (or has) any interest in occupying Serbia itself. I think this is more a matter of incompetence in writing the Accord and then insisting on its acceptance without any further negotiation than some secret desire to occupy all of Yugoslavia. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Enrique Diaz-Alvarez <enrique at anise.ee.cornell.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 2:52 PM Subject: Re: New light on NATO motives?
>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>> Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> >Is the desire to show the
>> >entire world what happens when you give Clinton the finger _that_
>> >strong?
>>
>> That's a rhetorical question, right?
>
>Well, no. I mean, playing Nintendo from 15,000 feet is one thing, but
>actually occupying a country with a history of making things really hard
>for occupiers is different.
>
>A good explanation is that NATO wanted to play Nintendo no matter what
>and teach the dirty Serbs who's boss, so the agreement was intentionally
>made unacceptable to them. I don't see how anybody with half a brain can
>conclude otherwise after reading Ch. 8, App. B, Art. B of the
>Rambouillet "agreement". Max, feel free to correct me.
>
>Does anybody know where the full content of the R. "agreement" may be
>found?
>
>--
>Enrique Diaz-Alvarez Office # (607) 255 5034
>Electrical Engineering Home # (607) 272 4808
>112 Phillips Hall Fax # (607) 255 4565
>Cornell University mailto:enrique at ee.cornell.edu
>Ithaca, NY 14853 http://peta.ee.cornell.edu/~enrique
>