OK, sigh, I guess I'll get into this one, although I view it as pretty murky and not an easy call, although I think that ultimately this bombing is a mistake and could well lead to a really ugly mess. I hope not.
But let's get some of the history right for starters: 1) Kosovo is the traditional heartland of Serbia, site of their defeat in 1389 by the Ottomans and also the site of the central shrines of the Serbian Orthodox Church. 2) The Albanians are Muslims (about 70%) and the Serbs view them historically as having been flunkies for the long-ruling Ottoman Turks who were only driven out with Russian assistance in 1878, when an independent Serbia was established which included the province of Kosovo. Disputes over whether Austria-Hungary or Serbia should control Bosnia led to the beginning of WW I when Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on the anniversary of the defeat in 1389. 3) After WW I (in which Serbia was on the victorious side) the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was established which renamed itself "Yugoslavia" in 1930, or thereabouts, which had nearly the borders of post-WW II Yugoslavia (main difference was that Italy had Istria in the northwest before the war which is now in Slovenia). 4) I note that there had been a "Yugoslav" nationalist movement from the time of Napoleon, based on the close relations among the South Slav languages ("Yugoslavia" means "South Slavia" in Serbo-Croatian) which supposedly overcame their disunity in religion (Catholic Slovenes and Croats against Orthodox Serbs and Macedonians and Bulgarians, who never joined the country, and the Muslim Bosniaks (Serbo-Croat speakers). Although Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian are officially viewed as distinct languages, it is a fact that somebody can manage just fine with Bulgarian in Slovenia, and that one can walk from Varna, Bulgaria on the Black Sea to the northwest corner of Slovenia without ever encountering a linguistic discontinuity or divide. These "languages" are artifices of governments and higher level entities.
The mostly Muslim Albanians are the odd folks out, being not Slavic and speaking a very distinct language. 5) During WW II the Nazis and fascists carved up Yugoslavia, with Slovenia being annexed to Germany (along with neighboring Austria), a nasty puppet regime being established in Croatia under the Ustashe who ran one of the worst concentration camps of the war at Jasenovic (the Croat leader used to keep a jar of eyeballs of the dead in his office). There was also a puppet regime in Serbia, opposed by the monarchist Chetniks and the Communist partisans under Tito (who operated out of Bosnia especially), but the province of Vojvidina in the north was annexed by Hungary, and Kosovo was attached to Albania which was under fascist Italian rule. Macedonia and Montenegro were parts of Serbia, although they would be full republics of Yugoslavia after the war (like Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia, but unlike Kosovo or Vojvodina). 6) After the war Tito and the League of Communists were in control. One of the motives for the decentralized workers' management system in Yugoslavia was to deal with the problem of separatism and ethnic tensions by devolving a lot of power to local rulers and leaders. For better or for worse regional inequalities worsened during this period of rule with a 3 to 1 ratio of income between (richest) Slovenia and (poorest) Kosovo becoming a 9 to 1 ratio by the time of the national dissolution in 1990-91. 7) Kosovo had the status of an autonomous republic within the Republic of Serbia within postwar Yugoslavia. It was granted a substantial degree of local autonomy by Tito, as was the autonomous republic of Vojvodina within Serbia. Kosovo was and remains the poorest part of the former Yugoslavia. Today, current Yugoslavia contains two republics, Serbia and Montenegro (Montenegro was independent before WW I and was the first of the Balkan states to achieve independence from the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians). The Republic of Serbia contains two autonomous republics, Kosovo and Vojvodina. 8) In 1989, the then leader of Serbia was the current Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic. He adopted a nationalist stance and gave a speech on the 600th anniversary of the Serb defeat by the Ottomans. Shortly thereafter he revoked the autonomy of both Kosovo and Vojvodina. It is the return to such autonomy that is the proclaimed goal of US/NATO and the bombing. For better or for worse the local Albanians are no longer interested in that and the KLA wants full independence, a more than minor problem, although tactically they gained by signing the Rambouillet Accords. 9) There has been a long demographic shift with ethnic Albanians becoming the majority in Kosovo probably in the 1950s. Today they are 80-90% of the population. A major complaint against them and their autonomous control prior to 1989 was that their local government discriminated against ethnic Serbs and encouraged the outmigration of Serbs. Milosevic reacted to that. Nobody should be under any illusions about the KLA either. They are patriarchal and chauvinistic mafiosi. 10) Offhand I would say that "autonomy" is a nice goal, but the KLA basically does not want it (they signed for it to get the current bombing of the Serbs). The US/NATO is in fact bombing a sovereign nation that is resisting a separatist movement. This is in violation of the UN Charter and OSCE agreements. The Russians are right to object. 11) OTOH, Milosevic and the Serbs have engaged in all kinds of nasty ethnic cleansing. What went on in Bosnia was much worse than anything that has happened in Kosovo so far, but support in Europe for the bombing clearly reflects the fear that the most recent Serb military actions in Kosovo could lead to such truly horrific and genocidal stuff. This has definitely gotten very ugly. But I do not see the bombing putting the Serbs off. Quite the contrary. Milosevic now has the support of even his critics in Serbia in the face of this attack. 12) Frankly, I'm not sure why the US is doing this. Some on these lists have and will charge that this is all generated by US capitalists out to undo the quasi-socialist regime in Yugoslavia, or that this is part of a power play against the Russians, traditional defenders of Serbia, or that this is a German plot (Germany having traditionally supported Croatia against Serbia). Maybe.
However, I think a lot of it is personal. Bill Clinton (and Madeleine Albright, a major player here) has simply gotten fed up with being blown off by Milosevic who has violated a cease fire agreement he made last fall. It is that violation and the vigor of the latest Serb actions that has brought about the support for the bombing of governments that might not be expected to support it. Notable in this regard is supposedly socialist and also traditionally pro-Serbian France, and also very pro-Serb Greece, and nearby (and nervous about attacks and refugees) Italy, also with a more or less semi-socialist government and recently angry with the US over the downed gondola incident. Greece is not actively supporting the bombing, but has not opposed it within NATO. Non-NATO member Austria has blocked all overflights in support of the bombing. But, leftist opinion in some of the countries, the newspaper "Liberation" in France, and the Reformed Communists in Italy in particular have been critical. Even in UK many are concerned that there is no exit strategy from this policy and that Clinton and the rest of them do not really know what they are doing.
It is clear that the US clearly feels it can get away with this. But where this will all end is very unclear. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Brett Knowlton <brettk at unica-usa.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 3:11 PM Subject: Re: Protest against the Bombing
>Margaret,
>
>I must admit I don't know enough about the situation to offer authoritative
>judgement, but here are my thoughts. If nothing else, perhaps they will
>prod other more knowledgeable types to chime in with their opinions.
>
>Here is my understanding of the Serbia/Kosovo business (anyone with more
>info/insight please feel free to correct any misconceptions I may have).
>When Yugoslavia splintered, Kosovo was independent for a time, but the
>Serbs put an end to that. Some ethnic Albanians felt strongly enough about
>it to take up arms, forming the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army, I believe?).
>
>Since the Serbs are stronger militarily, the KLA has to resort to guerrilla
>tactics, like hit and run raids and hitting "soft" targets, inevitably
>doing things which under different circumstances would be (appropriately)
>considered terrorist operations. Maybe they should be thought of in that
>way, or maybe they really are freedom fighters resisting Serbian tyrrany, I
>don't know.
>
>So, the Serbs consider Kosovo part of Serbian territory, and conisder the
>KLA to be separatists. Whatever the case, the Serbs have decided to fight
>the KLA, and as everyone who lived through the Vietnam era should know, you
>fight a guerrilla army by "taking the war to the people", i.e. going into
>the countryside and creating refugees in the regions where the guerrillas
>enjoy support, where invariably you kill some civilians along the way.
>This might be intentional or it might just be the inevitable result of the
>anti-guerrilla campaign, I don't know. The point is its an ugly, messy
>business, even if you believe the Serbs are trying to exercise "restraint."
>
>So, all this is pretty bad, lots of people being killed, etc. Now, what
>I'm really curious about, is what the diplomatic situation is like. I
>watched the news last night and was disgusted (but not surprised) with the
>coverage. Instead of getting a feel for the diplomatic positions of the
>two sides, all I saw was mild demonization of Slobodan Milosevic, lots of
>coverage of the bad things the Serbs are doing in Kosovo, and clips of
>Clinton saying this may cause a wider war.
>
>There were brief mentions of some interesting other stuff, like the fact
>that the Serbs had made some kind of offer the day before the bombing, but
>the details of this offer were ignored. So, what is the Serbian position?
>What is the position of the KLA? Why is the US implicitly siding with the
>KLA? Why does Clinton think this will prevent the spread of the conflict,
>when it is painfully obvious that our bombing the Serbs has massively
>pissed off the Russians? What if the bombing doesn't bring the Serbs to
>the bargaining table - what's our next move? I haven't seen any good
>answers to these questions, or other relevant questions.
>
>Combining the failure to communicate any compelling reason to intervene
>with the general principle that this is an internal matter and we should
>keep our noses out of such conflicts, as well as the principle that the use
>of force should be the option of last resort, I am opposed to bombing.
>
>Brett
>
>>I'm curious. I hardly ever these days play the
>>apologist for US imperialism, but the attacks on Serbia
>>-- regardless of true motivation! -- seem at least to
>>be directed at the right target. Too often in the
>>past, as Alinsky and Chomsky among others have pointed
>>out, we would have almost mindlessly supported the
>>status quo instead, no matter how disgusting.
>>
>>If we actually do think self-determination is a Good
>>Idea, and if we agree that Kosovo is ethnically
>>albanian, and if we agree that the Serbs are using
>>their superior military strength to suppress the desire
>>for self-determination ...then why would we want to
>>protest the US bombing of the Serbs?
>
>