Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------------------------- Pravda.RU:Main:More in detail http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/08/20/12879.html 18:58 2001-08-20 ALAN BOCK: A MACEDONIAN FANTASY? There are essentially two types of peace agreements: those that ratify a peace that is in place for whatever reason (conquest, surrender, war-weariness) and those that seek to push forward a "process" that has not yet brought anything resembling an actual peace. One may hope that the Macedonian peace accord signed Monday is in the former category, but it is more likely that it is in the latter, which means it is more likely to be an illusion - and another opportunity for NATO to assert power - than a genuine step toward peace. It can be appropriate and helpful for an outside entity to get involved in facilitating an agreement that is a done deal or even close to completion. Sometimes a neutral party can help to build bridges, tie up details, provide a forum in which trust can be built - when the parties involved in hostilities are actually ready to cease hostilities. When the parties engaged in hostilities are not really ready to stop engaging in violence and recriminations - the Israeli-Palestinian situation comes to mind - a forced agreement imposed by outside parties is not only something of a fantasy, it is likely to damage the prospects for a genuine settlement. THE MISSING PARTY In the case of the Macedonian agreement, the groups of guerrillas generally called "ethnic Albanian rebels" in the media have been the primary irritants, having begun insurgency operations in February. The only way a peace agreement would have a chance of permanence would be for those rebel groups to be a signatory, or at least to have agreed informally to abide by the agreement. Naturally, the rebels are not a party to the agreement. Instead, some ethnic Albanian political groups with tenuous connections to the rebels -- groups that have generally not been involved in armed struggle in the first place -- signed on. Although at least one rebel leader said Tuesday (August 14) that the rebels would respect the cease-fire, most Macedonian newspapers ranged from guarded to skeptical to cynical in their assessments. The gaps between apparently promising to disarm and actually disarming can be quite large; just today the Irish Republican Army rejected another proposal, part of a years-long process, to disarm as the British would like them to disarm. I would be astounded if even a formal agreement to disarm went forward without caches of weapons stored in various woods and mountains. OTHER PROBLEMS The ethnic Albanian rebels are not the only relevant parties that haven't completely bought into the wonderful NATO-crafted peace "settlement." The government restricted media access to the signing ceremony at the Skopje residence of Macedonian president Boris Trajkovski, fearing Macdonians would be angered by what most view as compromises to appease the rebels. MISSING THE POINT The US-NATO fallacy driving this manic push for some piece of paper for somebody to sign, Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute believes, is that what the ethnic Albanian rebels want is a better deal from the Macedonian state. Carpenter notes that at least half the rebels are not from Macedonia at all, but from Kosovo. And what most of the rebel leaders say they want is not recognition of Albanian as a second official language, but a Greater Albania. The NATO and American diplomats seem to view the conflicts in the Balkans as akin to political contests among various ethnic groups in large American cities, so they think they are buying off groups by offering jobs, patronage, respect and a place at the table to a few designated leaders. THE GUFFAW FACTOR There's a certain almost charming naivetĘ in some of the statements from the diplomats who assembled to supervise the signing. "Clearly, there has to be a sustainable cease-fire," Lord Robertson fantasized, "and clear indications from the insurgents that they mean business in terms of disarming completely and handing over their weapons and ammunition to the NATO troops when they come." Has he ever talked to anybody with even the slightest involvement in the Northern Ireland conflict? Even more amusing was James Pardew of the United States, who said, "This is the day when we can begin an end to this conflict and take all the political issues off the table. After this day, there should be no reason for fighting." DEFENDING YESTERDAY'S INTERVENTION The most plausible explanation I have seen for the determination of NATO and US diplomats to get involved in an almost surely untenable situation in Macedonia comes from Gary Dempsey of Cato, who served as an election observer in Bosnia and has spent considerable time in the region. He thinks the reason is to try to prevent the previous intervention in Kosovo from blowing up in NATO's face. The Albanian rebels in Macedonia, especially since many of them are from Kosovo, have the capacity to do a good deal of mischief in Kosovo. Insofar as they do, it just might become too apparent even for NATO and the international press to ignore that the mission in Kosovo has not only been a failure but a destabilizing factor. So to maintain the pretense that the Kosovo occupation is something other than a farce NATO is willing to get even more deeply involved in a highly volatile situation in Macedonia. It probably won't work as a means of staving off disaster in Kosovo, though it might divert attention from Kosovo for a while. By Alan Bock www.antiwar.com ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
