Thanks for posting this - I learned a lot from it.
Brett
At 04:27 PM 3/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
> 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