I've got no problem with saying that Rugova is wrong. Wrong to call for air-strikes against the Serbs, wrong to call for air-strikes against Kosovars.
Rugova was the elected leader of Kosovo, not of the whole of the Balkans. His mandate does not extend to Belgrade or Novi Sad, any more than Tony Blair's does. If we disapprove of military actions by Serbs against Kosovars in violation of Kosovo's autonomy, how can we justify military action against Yugoslavia in violation of its sovereignty?
But what are we to make of a leader who calls down the bombs on the very people that elected him? Are you any less dead if you are killed by Nato bombs than Serbian militia men?
If the KLA or Rugova were calling for independence, they might deserve our support, but in substance they are calling for the subordination of their region to a Western protectorate.
In message <005401bea0b5$ed61ffe0$55f48482 at nsn2>, Nathan Newman
<nathan.newman at yale.edu> writes
>A number of people have invoked Rugova's past history of nonviolence, in
>opposition to the illegitimate KLA, to argue that the Kosovar leadership was
>"really" against NATO's actions; Rugova's "meeting" with Milosevic was even
>sited by some as supporting this argument.
>
>Now, with Rugova safely out from under Milosevic's power, he has called for
>the NATO strikes to continue until Milosevic agrees to withdraw his troops
>and allow an outside military presence in Kosovo - exactly NATO's demands.
>
>If the broad leadership of the Kosovar people, from KLA military types to
>Rugova, all argue that the military strikes are in the interest of their
>people, I wonder how others can argue in their name for its uselessness?
>
>The Kosovar leadership may be wrong of course, but it seems rather
>self-assuming for others to speak for their interests.
-- Jim heartfield