Rambouillet was Re: Max's practical import

Michael Hoover hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us
Sat May 29 15:30:59 PDT 1999



> can anyone tell me what the position of the Belgrade negotiators was re the
> economic clauses in Rambouillet? (if there's already been a discussion on
> this, I apologise, I missed it.)
> Angela

the 2/23 document that the Yugoslavian gov't refused to sign differs dramatically from the 1/27 document to which negotiators indicated tentative approval...2 key differences: 1/27 contains nothing remotely resembling 2/23's statement in Chapter 4a about the economy of Kosovo functioning in accordance with free market principles...nor does 1/27 mention NATO at all which is the topic of 2/23's Appendix B...

recall that the Kosovar Albanian delegation refused to sign 1/27 without assurances of NATO presence, independent institutions, and a referendum on independence after 3 years...2/23, formulated by the US, provided for each...Yugoslavia's counter-proposal to maintain federal decisionmaking in economic and foreign policies, apply federal laws to Kosovo, and authorize am international presence to observe and advise but not control was summarily rejected...signing 2/23 would mean Yugoslavia's acceptance of NATO while refusal to sign would mean bombing and then NATO troops...

who picked the Kosovar Albanian delegation to Rambouillet, the Republic of Kosova shadow gov't?...and were they representing the Serbian 10-15% of the region's population as well?...and why does 2/23 identify the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as NATO, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as FRY (apropos given the bombing) and the Kosova Liberation Army as 'Other Forces'?... Michael Hoover

btw, folks can check out both 1/27 and 2/23 at

http://www.suc.org/kosovo_crisis/documents



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list