I was looking at Yahoo's news links, and there I read a page by the ever impartial and unbiased BBC News which stated, more or less, that Milosevic had agreed to a worse deal than if he had accepted the terms of the original Rambouillet agreement; the page is entitled "World: Europe Q & A: Did the Serbs lose out?" :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_360000/360932.stm
and yet a couple of moments later I read on this other page:
the following quote:
> ...Serb troops will demobilize from west to east, with NATO forces on
> their heels, Bacon said. A 15-mile buffer zone will separate Kosovo
> from the rest of Serbia, and will help ensure disgruntled Serbs
> cannot re-enter Kosovo or fire at NATO troops there, Bacon said.
"Disgruntled," I like that, nice choice of words...Gee, I kinda guess I'd be "disgruntled" too if, say, NATO bombers had blasted my Grandma to shreds as she lay in bed in her nursing home, or if ski-masked Serbian paramilitaries had seized and shot my father, brothers, and cousins.
But do I misread this, or has NATO given in on that fatal provision of the Rambouillet ultimatum which required that not just Kosovo but the entirety of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia submit themselves to occupation by NATO? Not that BBC News would care to have its readers look too closely at that aspect of the tentative peace agreement, as it's going to be "cover your ass" time for everybody in sight. But if there's going to be a buffer zone, a DMZ, between the Serbs and Kosovo, doesn't that mean that NATO or the U.N. or whatever is not going to occupy Serbia?
Yours WDK - WKiernan at concentric.net