Traditionally anti-Serb Austria is no closer than traditionally pro-Serb Greece or Italy, both of whom are supporting the NATO actions, although there is reportedly substantial opposition to this within Greece and they are only providing logistical support, not planes.
I do not have a definite answer and am waiting for someone to explain why such traditionally pro-Serb countries as France and Greece are going along with this, although it appears that they might have been among those questioning the latest escalation of the bombing.
Frankly I tend to these broader explanations, Jim Devine's theory of a US-led New World Order with NATO as a main operating body, perhaps feeling a need to assert its existence and power with the addition of its new members from Central Europe. In the rhetoric there has been a lot of emphasis on "NATO's credibility," nothing about the EU.
In terms of why so many of the European countries are going along with this, I think that it has very little to do with economics (except for maybe Germany) and much more to do with some self-image of "how Europe should behave," which fits in with the EU expansion as well, the glorification of the new Eurobourgeoisie, if you will, tied in with end-of- century, end-of-millennium hankerings. Never again, and all that. A lot of people in Europe I think feel guilty about Srebenica and with good reason. So, now they thought they would stop it again. But it is not working out. In short, I think there is a lot of misguided idealism and plain stupidity here. The lack of convincing material explanations is part of why I think this. The Austrian counterexample to the Danube theory is just too strong, and none of the others, not even the mines are worth all this to any of them. -----Original Message----- From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu <pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 3:45 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4684] Re: Kosovo
>At 02:41 PM 3/31/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> 1) The Death of the Danube Theory:
>> Greg Nowell recently suggested that the explanation
>>for the NATO actions in Yugoslavia were explained by
>>anger over Serbian machinations to slow trade along
>>the Danube with references specifically to German and
>>Dutch interests. This does not wash. Why not?
>> Austria.
>
>
>Barkley:
>
>How then do you explain the European involvement in the Kosovo adventure?
>It seems so antithetical to their interests - the refuge problem,
>re-asserting the Us hegemony, destablizations of the releationships with
>Russia -- it just does not make sense.
>
>As for Austria - they stand more to loose if the conflict escalates than
>anyone else in Western Europe because of their geographical proximity, so
>their pacifism is understandable.
>
>As I understand it, water is a very attractive transit route, given the
>unreliability and high costs of Russian railroads. As I heard, the
>Japanese opted for much longer sea shipping instead of the much faster
>Trans-Siberian railroad, because of that problem.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Wojtek
>
>