However this criticism of the war below, although it will certainly not suit all list members, seems to me significant for the future. Carter has taken the role of an expert in peace politics. His criticisms have echoes with those of Paul Rogers, professor at Bradford university's school of peace studies quoted in the Guardian article forwarded by Doug on shift in bombing strategy and me in the contribution on class structure in the Balkans.
NATO cannot be turned round now, although pressure can mount for a compromise peace sooner rather than later. Milosevic will accept some NATO troops on Kosovo soil.
The world will see they have made a desert and called it peace.
At that point what matters is how the NATO action is criticised, because it will be, very vocally. Think of all the journalists treading over the ground having to say something. This war has not been a push over for NATO. The nature of the criticism will affect the extent to which the US together with its most loyal ally (there is little dispute about who that is) is constrained in its role as hegemon of the world.
Out of this process, and much struggle, will come a better understanding of international law, which will limit the self-appointed hard men till we get to some sort of world governance that armed force can only be used internationally according to agreed procedures.
In this ideological and political battle, contributions from quarters as apparently insignificant as a department of peace studies in Bradford and a peace unit run by a rather naive former US president, will actually shape the terms of debate.
It is not so silly as it seems. And what is written here, it is not incompatible with the principle of Clausewitz embraced by marxists, that war is the continuation of politics by other means, and politics is the continuation of war by other means. Realistic peace studies argue merely that the political phase should at least be extended longer before resort to war. And then should not be forgotten.
Note in this summary from Carter his specific areas of criticism, including about the stopping of the negotiations before the third week in March, and about cluster bombs, and targetting roads, bridges and water supplies. Yes it is still an imperialist analysis because it leaves a lot of scope for intervention, and actually promotes a ground force, but this adds to a list of major strategic errors by NATO and will get debated in the aftermath.
[I see also that Gunder Frank has posted an article by Carter of the same date, on his web site.]
bombing 'a fruitless effort'
May 28, 1999
Web posted at: 7:45 a.m. EDT (1145 GMT)
PLAINS, Georgia (CNN) -- Former U.S. President
Jimmy Carter said Thursday that NATO's
bombardments of Yugoslavia have failed to achieve
the alliance's stated goals, and have unleashed
"horrible destruction" on Serb civilians.
"I just hate to see us continue to destroy the lives of
totally innocent civilians in Serbia in a fruitless effort,"
he said on CNN's "Larry King Live." He called the
air campaign "well-intentioned but
counterproductive."
In a harsh assessment of NATO, Carter said the
alliance should have begun preparing for a ground
invasion of Kosovo immediately after Operation
Allied Force began "to make sure that (Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic) knew we meant
business."
Carter: Ground troops better than bombing
Carter said sending ground troops into Kosovo
would be "a better option" than the bombing he
blames for hurting the people of Serbia but not
Milosevic. He said he became alarmed when the
bombing shifted from military targets to roads,
bridges, and water supplies.
"The endgame seems to be a decision by NATO to
continue this destruction of Yugoslavian civilian life,"
he said on CNN. "We can destroy Yugoslavia by
continued bombing, but I'm not sure we'll defeat
Milosevic."
The former president, who has become well-known
as a peace negotiator since leaving office in 1980,
said he thought NATO could have done more to try
to reach a peaceful resolution before the conflict
began, and that negotiations should never have been
abandoned.
White House 'respectfully disagrees'
In response to Carter's comments, State Department
spokesman James Rubin said "President Carter's
suggestion that we should have kept on negotiating
with President Milosevic ... is simply incorrect."
White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said
Carter was a leader with "real stature ... both at
home and abroad. But on this case we just
respectfully disagree with him."
Carter said he wrote to President Clinton a few
weeks ago, urging him not to use cluster bombs -- a
weapon that Carter said is "only used to kill human
beings." He said he has not received a response from
the president.
The former president is chairman of the nonprofit
Carter Center in Atlanta, which monitors conflicts
around the world. In an op-ed piece in Thursday's
New York Times, Carter lamented the willingness of
leaders to give up on peaceful resolutions.
"We have become increasingly inclined to sidestep
the time- tested premises of negotiation, which in
most cases prevent deterioration of a bad situation,
and at least offer the prospect of a bloodless
solution," Carter wrote.
His comments came as NATO granted Supreme
NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark authority to
hit a broader range of targets in Yugoslavia.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.