Ken,
Your analysis of the Rambouillet Accords is reasonable.
But then you went all goopy and incoherent when you began
going on about partition.
First of all you declared that "ethnic cleansing works."
Yuck! Then you cite Slovakia as an example. Sorry, there
has been no ethnic cleansing in Slovakia. There was a
secession (not a partition) between the already defined
sections, Bohemia and Moravia going into the Czech Republic
and then Slovakia becoming a separate independent country.
Remaining Czechs and other minorities in Slovakia were not
removed and did not have their houses burned, neither did
anything similar happen in the CR. In particular, there has
been an ongoing problem about mistreatment of the Hungarian
minority in Slovakia, but that situation seems to have improved
and stabilized, not least because the Hungarians got a government
that stopped threatening to annex territories in neighboring
countries, such as Yugoslavia and Romania, with substantial
Hungarian minorities. In any case, the Slovakians have not
"cleansed" or otherwise forced out the Hungarians.
Partition involves drawing a line across a previously
undivided territory. This happened in Cyprus and also in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. I do not know what you mean by the
idea of partition in the context of Kosovo-Metohija. Do you mean
making it independent of Serbia? Do you mean drawing a
line across its middle and putting the Albanians on one side
and the Serbs on the other? Just where would you draw that
line? Look closely at a map before you claim that you can do so.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 2:56 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5782] Re: RE: Peace Agreement or a Kosovo as dictated by
NATO?
>
>
>Max Sawicky wrote:
>
>> I completely take your point that any "hot pursuit" clause in an
>> agreement is a license for abuse on the part of the pursuer. But
>> if the whole object of the exercise is to restrain
>> state-sponsored, illegal acts by Serbs, then there has to be some
>> kind of superceding authority with police power. If it was the
>> UN, that would be fine with me.
>>
>> Don't forget, my object is not to pull Nato's wagon, but to
>> secure Kosovan sovereignty. The Albanians had problems with the
>> treaty as well because, as they have said, Nato was (and is)
>> insufficiently focused on self-determination for Kosova.:
>>
>
>COMMENT:Actually that was not my point. My point is that there is in
>the agreement specific clauses that deal with pursuit. If as you say
>there is need to chase and catch paramilitary people caught
>terrorising Albanians in Kosovo then the Kosovo police should be able
>to chase them into Serbia and be assured that they are handed over to
>them. I am criticizing MAX not NATO at this point. You claimed that
>the appendiceswhich give NATO all sorts of power to use ports,
>facilities etc. in the FRY outside of Kosovo are really meant simply
>to authorise chases. That is bs. That's my point.
> The pursuit regulations are reciprocal. Serbs could chase a KLA
>terrorist into Kosovo and the authorities there must turn him or her
>over to Serb authorities. Actually, I can see the plausibility of
>these particular regulations. I would just wonder how even-handed
>NATO would be in enforcing them but even so something like these
>regulations would be necessary.
>
>> > The sections for Max to peruse are: Article V 2 a i-iv.
>> The treaty is not a peace treaty. It demands among other things
>> that the economy operate in a specified manner. The parties agree
>> not to engage in
>> the sin of socialism unless perhaps some sort of free market
>> socialism.
>> Under the Economy Article 1 1) says and I quote: The economy of
>> Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles.
>> >
>>
>> I fully agree this is a totally inappropriate goal on the part of
>> NATO.
>>
>
>Wow. Max and I fully agree on something!
>
>> > This is a f***ing peace treaty? >>
>>
>> Sure, just like NAFTA is a free trade agreement. More seriously,
>> I don't remember expressing support for it, though if it had
>> precluded what has happened since, I would say it was a
>> preferable outcome. As I recall, Kosovans did not support it,
>> which ought to be an important datum.
>>
>> Presently the economic stuff is a pure distraction from the
>> important issues. Insistence on it, in the unlikely event other
>> matters were settled, would be criminally irresponsible.
>>
>> > The CIM, the chief of the implementation mission, has all sorts
>> of powers and the parties agree to co-operate with him or her..
>> If you don't your outa
>> there. There is no appeal. The IM supervises everything and if
>> things are
>> not going according to the IM's interpretation of the
>> treaty---and the parties agree that the IM is the final
>> interpreter- the IM can change them so they do go as they
>> "ought". There are even provisions that make it certain that no
>> local police could ever in their wildest dreams think of
>> challenging KFOR weapons. Talk about gun control! There are
>> strict stipulations about what sort of weapons local police can
>> have that are astounding to me. >
>>
>> If Serbian police are presently butchering innocent people, what
>> would you propose regarding limits on their freedom of action, if
>> any? I'd be interested in your alternative construction, rather
>> than all the shortcomings of the NATO proposals.
>>
>> mbs
>
> COMMENT:
> My main position is this: Bombing makes the situation worse.
>Stop the bombing.
>That is my first constructive proposal.
> I would support this proposal even if it put no limits
>at all on Serb police butchering innocent people. The bombing makes
>the situation worse even if
>stopping the bombing doesn't stop butchering innocent people. Bombing
>really has put no limit on the butchering it has created the
>conditions that promote the butchering and also killed many other
>people as well.
> Harping on and on about atrocities I see as simply fueling the
>irrational reponses that cause people to support the bombing. Its
>"proper" role is in the psychological warfare that is going on. This
>warfare
>should be evident to you. NATO repeats any atrocity tale it can get
>its hands on verified or not. The media picks it up and people say:
>We must do something. I am saying . Wait . That is just a plain
>non-sequitur.
>Does intervening through bombing make the problem worse or better?
>In this case I claim it has obviously made things worse. Then the
>first constructive conclusion is. Stop bombing. Should there be
>intervention?
> I am not sure but I will suggest some types of intervention.
>I think there is a real hubris at work here. People think that they
>can intervene in a bad situation and improve it. Why should this
>always be the case. Sometimes maybe bad things happen and you just
>cant stop them. Humans are not omnipotent. They may not be able to
>make things better. However, in the case of Yugoslavia I think that
>there are at least some plausible modes of action that at least will
>not make the situation worse.
> After the bombing is stopped there should be a diplomatic
>initiative. At the very least the FRY will agree to a ceasefire I
>should think, but without the agreement of the KLA some conflict will
>still exist. I doubt that the KLA would think that just stopping
>armed action at this point would be wise but I don't know for sure.
> The FRY seems to be agreeable to some type of peacekeeping force
>as long as it is not NATO and perhaps with at least some of the
>peacekeepers from countries such as Russia or Belarus.
> The terms of any treaty must as far as possible be the result of
>the main parties being in agreement.
>I am not sure how significant the moderate Albanian leadership is at
>this point. I expect not very strong.
>Perhaps they should be involved. I am not sure. Certainly the KLA
>should be involved and of course the Serbs. Other parties should be
>involved primarily as mediators. NATO was not a mediator, it
>formulated the treaty and forced it down the throats of the parties.
>It is NATO's interest not the KLA's or Serbs that were written in
>that treaty. It is a sample New World Order document.
> At this stage I doubt that any agreement will be possible that
>does not involve partition. While everyone talks about the
>unspeakable nature of ethnic cleansing it seems to me that in those
>places where
>there has been serious ethnic violence ethnic cleansing has worked.
>Cyprus is a good example,
>Slovakia another. Partition would allow the KLA independence
>immediately and the Serbs face-saving and a slice of territory that
>they could expect to hold and be part of the FRY. Both parties have a
>genuine interest in this type of solution. NATO did not allow that
>possible solution to be shown to the FRY originally. Of course NATO
>does not want this solution. It doesn't want an independent Kosova
>except
>under NATO guidance and control. The KLA knows this full well. I
>fully understand their mistrust of
>NATO. Whatever powers be given to a third party enforcing the
>agreement should be agreed upon by the
>main parties to the conflict. They should not be imposed by an
>outside party through threats and/or
>payoffs.
> Anyway there's my positive stuff.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
>
