Ken,
I don't think I have any serious disagreement with
this post or with the arguments of Jim D. and Dough that
this war is seriously exacerbating the nationalist sentiments
of both the Serbs and the Albanian Kosovars. And with the
scrambling of the populations and the discrediting of the
to-my-mind not unreasonable solution of Serbian sovereignty
with Kosovar autonomy, with an acceptable external force
protecting the rights of the various minoirities, this is really
an awful mess and seeming to get worse by the minute as
the bombing target list expands to ever more inappropriate
sites throughout Yugoslavia.
My only minor quibble is that it is not at all obvious that the
UCK/KLA is unhappy about NATO. I think that they played their
hand at Rambouillet, once they figured it out, to provoke NATO
into bombing with the outcome that now NATO is becoming more
and more explicitly allied with them. Hey, they are the ones who
captured the Yugoslav prisoners of war who have been turned
over to NATO! Max Sawicky may be right that the goal of NATO
has now become an independent Kosova under the control of
the UCK/KLA.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 3:42 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5850] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Peace Agreement or a Kosovo as
dictated by NATO?
>I didn't think that you were unnecessarily cranky given that what I had to
say
>did not apply to Slovakia
>at all but to Croatia. I agree that in the case of Bosnia, ethnic cleansing
had
>to a degree already defined the borders of the several republics, although
from
>looking at the map they seem to wander all over the place.
>Given that the population of Kosova was over 90 percent ethnic Albanian
they
>would occupy most of the land, but now who knows. Of course I am
predicating a
>division only on the premise that both parties are agreeable to that. Maybe
they
>will not be but maybe they will. Both the KLA and the Serbs distrust NATO
and
>with excellent reason. They may very well be willing to settle at some
point to
>avoid a NATO imposed solution.
> Milosevic seems open to some kind of peace-keeping force, so perhaps
there
>is still a solution without partition or division. However, NATO has
already
>rejected his move. There has been little elaboration of
>exactly what his proposal was and no real explanation of why it seems to be
>rejected out of hand.
>
>I expect that NATO will press on until they get something like the
Rambouillet
>agreement or worse and both the Serbs and the KLA will
>be sold out.You will have democracy from above as is happening in Bosnia
but
>only after much more destruction. This democracy will be
>tailored to the interest of global capital. The IMF and the World Bank will
>invade as well as the
>privatisers and western economic advisors. That both FRY and Kosovo will
need
>massive injections of
>money generates the most serious obstacle to any significant development of
>institutions within which ethnic Albanians or Serbs have any power. If this
>democracy is developed from above the situation will.be even more dismal.
Of
>course even this is better than continued destruction but it should be
avoided
>if at all possible.
> If there were to be a UN protectorate it should on the whole be set up
>according to the wishes and with the agreement of both Serbs and ethnic
>Albanians. At this point it looks as if NATO is just going ahead
>even if the FRY does not agree to anything. The KLA seems to be forgotten
as
>well except as a
>convenient way to harass Serbs without any NATO casualties and as an ally
in
>locating targets for
>NATO planes.
> What of the difficulty of mixing Serbs with ethnic Albanians after all
that
>has happened. A sort of peace can exist in Bosnia because the warring
factions
>are separated but as you and I both agree this is not the situation in
Kosovo.
>How will ethnic Albanians and Serbs live peacefully side by side? If you
allow
>any sort of democracy surely the first thing that will happen is that the
>Albanian majority will vote for independence. Then the UN will find itself
in
>the dilemma that Serbia faced.
>How do you peacefully retain territory under your jurisdiction in the face
of a
>large majorities' desire to
>be independent? Or do you just say. To hell with Serbia. Independence with
no
>Serb agreement. Serves them right? And how will surrounding areas with
>significant pockets of ethnic Albanians feel about that?
>Of course NATO would not be happy with this outcome, but how could it be
>avoided. I really think
>the moderate autonomy alternative was the first casualty of the bombing and
the
>cleansing and offensive
>within Kosovo that it facilitated.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Ken,
>> Sorry if I was unnecessarily cranky. This business
>> just does not admit of any obvious or easy solutions.
>> Partition was not so difficult in Bosnia-Herzegovina
>> (well, a few hundred thousand people got killed first)
>> in that although there was a lot of mixing of people it
>> was fairly clear that certain groups were the majority in
>> certain zones, especially after the cleansing cleared out
>> some of the mixings. There still are some loose ends
>> though, like the city of Brcko that links the two main areas
>> of Serb domination (the two halves of the Srpska Republika).
>> For better or for worse this has not been the case
>> particularly in Kosovo-Metohija. Frankly, as near as I
>> can gather, there has been no area where the Serbs were
>> clearly the majority. Maybe they are now, although it
>> becomes pretty arbitrary. Ironically, the areas that have
>> been cleared most clearly are in the south, near the borders
>> of the other countries, perhaps partly to create a cordon
>> sanitaire against the UCK/KLA, and also perhaps because
>> as I have already noted, that's where the "heart of Serbia"
>> historical and religious monuments are, thus making it hard
>> to turn that geographically obvious zone into an Albanian
>> enclave. Most of the remaining Albanian population is in the
>> north, the obvious site for a Serbian zone. But now it is
>> really messed up.
>> I can certainly think of worse outcomes than the whole
>> province being an UN protectorate. Especially if it happened
>> soon before more killing happens and NATO works itself up
>> into sending in troops.
>> BTW, for those who want to be linguistically correct, the
>> Serbo-Croation local name of "Montenegro" (which is its Italian name) is
>> Cherny Gora, meaning in either language, "Black Mountain."
>> Barkley Rosser
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 6:24 PM
>> Subject: [PEN-L:5799] Re: Re: Re: RE: Peace Agreement or a Kosovo as
>> dictated by NATO?
>>
>> >Sorry. Of course you are right. I meant Croatia. I was thinking of the
>> >cleansing of Krajina (sp)
>> >My basic thought is this. It is going to be extremely difficult if not
>> >impossible for a solution in which Serbs and ethnic Albanians live side
by
>> >side in the near future in Kosovo. The Albanians will want independence
>> >not just autonomy. This is not acceptable to the Serbs.With partition,
>> Serbs
>> >would have control of at least part of their territory and would be free
>> >from a civil war and conflict with the ethnic Albanians within that
area.
>> >The ethnic Albanians would get independence immediately and there would
be
>> a
>> >place for refugees to settle. Parties should be free to settle where
they
>> >wish. I am not suggesting forced ethnic cleansing.
>> > As for the difficulty of drawing borders. That is primarily up to
the
>> >parties involved, the most an outsider could do is offer advice and
mediate
>> >inevitable disagreements. Who the hell are outside parties to be drawing
>> >maps showing how land is to be divided? Anyway isn't Bosnia an example
of
>> >where partition has at least stopped the slaughter? If partition is so
>> >unrealistic
>> >why was it considered by NATO strategists and then not presented to the
>> >parties-- apparently on the grounds that the FRY might accept it. I take
>> >back the parts about payoffs by a third party to gain agreement. If NATO
>> >suggested support for full independence for part of Kosovo and aid for
>> >resettlement of refugees etc. as a means of inducing the KLA to support
>> >partition I would be for it. Similarly if NATO
>> >offered monetary aid to rebuild the damage in FRY to induce the Serbs to
>> >sign I would be for it. But no more threats of using force.
>> > What do you suggest? Making Kosovo-Metohija a UN protectorate?
>> > Cheers, Ken Hanly
>> >
>> >J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
