[This estimates are lower by an order of 10 from the ones I'm used to. Is there budgetary ledgerdemain afoot? Are these oft-cited institutes untrustworthy on such questions? Or are the numbers that have normally been bandied around for the war's cost (half a billion a day) just oft-repeated nonsense? The estimates below for Kosovan rebuilding costs are also very low.]
[Also, what does "already scheduled defense spending" mean? Does that cover basically everything except the actual bombs that were set off and the extra gas we used?]
Michael
Totaling the tab for the war in Kosovo
Copyright © 1999 Nando Media
Copyright © 1999Christian Science Monitor Service
By DAVID R. FRANCIS
(July 23, 1999 11:05 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - As wars go,
the NATO victory in war over Kosovo was cheap. "A walk in the park,"
says Gordon Adams, deputy director of the International Institute for
Strategic Studies in London.
For the United States - which has incurred the most expenses - the
incremental cost of the Kosovo war itself was about $2 billion above
already-scheduled defense spending, estimates Adams. Maybe as much as
$3 billion, says Steven Kosiak, an expert at the Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessment in Washington.
That $2 billion-plus covered hazardous duty pay for the military,
transportation costs, fuel, and munitions. Final costs will reflect
what decisions the Pentagon makes this summer on replacing the
precision-guided missiles, the more numerous regular bombs, other
munitions, and drones (remotely piloted vehicles) used in the war. The
United States also lost an F-117 and an F-16 during the bombing
operations.
By comparison, the Gulf War, involving ground forces, cost the United
States $60 billion. One Pentagon study, however, indicated that the
United States made a slight "profit" on the war because of the large
contributions of Japan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other nations to its
costs.
Though overall the Kosovo war has amassed a much smaller tab, the bill
is swelling as the international effort moves into the postwar phase.
NATO peacekeepers are expensive. So - maybe - will be the rebuilding
of the Serbian province.
To help residents of Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, and others in the
region deal with the economic consequences of the conflict, some 82
countries and financial institutions have been invited to a donor
conference Thursday in Brussels.
Two days later, President Clinton plans to go to Sarajevo, capital of
Bosnia, for a Balkans summit with top leaders from the European Union,
the 19 NATO countries, other nations in Europe, and Russia. About 30
heads of state are expected to attend.
To cover defense spending and rebuilding related to the Kosovo war,
the U.S. Congress has already appropriated $6 billion extra for fiscal
1999 for the Balkans.
The European nations and institutions, with tight budgets, are
expected to face difficulty in finding funds. There is concern that
other aid projects may be raided to find funds for the Balkans.
Each of the NATO countries is paying for its own operations in the
Kosovo war. Most costs have been considerably less than those of the
United States, which lent the majority of military power.
One report puts France's costs at $600 million. The British have a 1.5
million pound (the equivalent of $2.2 billion) contingency fund in
their treasury, with the military expected to bid for a chunk of that.
Because most of the war's costs fell on the United States, and because
the Balkans are in Europe, the United States has said Europe should
carry the major burden of peacekeeping and reconstruction.
Britain is expected to have 13,000 peacekeepers on the ground; Germany
9,000; France 8,000; along with other nations. The United States is
providing 6,000 to 7,000 peacekeeping troops, which will cost $2
billion or so a year to maintain, experts say. With lower military
wages and shorter supply lines, the Europeans' costs will likely be
proportionately less.
As for rebuilding Kosovo, the European Union has agreed to take the
lead role. Based on its experience in Bosnia, the EU initially
estimated 500 million euros (about $525 million) a year for three
years to rebuild the Serbian province. The rest of the world would
double that amount, the EU assumed.
But physical damage in Kosovo from NATO bombs and Serbian destruction
was less than anticipated. This was noted by officials attending a
strategy session July 13 in Brussels of finance ministers from the
Group of Eight industrial nations and officials from the EU, the
International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
The implication is that repairs will be less costly. One official was
reported as saying only $700 million to $800 million may be needed.
The immediate concern in rebuilding Kosovo is seeing that returning
refugees are adequately housed, fed, clothed, and supplied with power
and water.
The allies are also aiming to set up a civil administration, including
a police force, a democracy, and a functioning economy.
None of this will be easy, experts reckon. Kosovo still has close
economic ties with Serbia proper, which is subject to economic
sanctions and will not receive reconstruction aid until Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic is out of office, Clinton has indicated.
(c) Copyright 1999. The Christian Science Publishing Society
______________________________________________________________________
Click here for FREE tools to a successful business online!
______________________________________________________________________
Global | Nation | Sports | Politics | Opinions | Business | Techserver
| Health & Science | Entertainment | Weather | Baseball | Basketball |
Football | Hockey | Sport Server | MAIN
_________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 1999 Nando Media
Do you have some feedback for the Nando Times staff?