Kosovo: The Other Side Of The Story

by Stephen Abbott (New Hampshire)

The sloganeering is over, the arguments have been made, the troops have been called up, and the bombs have begun to drop on Serbia. Unfortunately, the American people have gotten only half of the story of the Kosova/Serbian conflict - if that - and these half-truths are being used by the American propaganda machine both at the Pentagon and on the TV networks to "sell" Americans on the correctness of this military action.

On Wednesday, president Clinton said, "Just the other day, I actually read up on the history of that area." How reassuring to the people of this region that the leader of the Western world is "reading up" on their region's history nearly the last night before determining its future political destiny. This speaks volumes about the arrogance and parternalism of both NATO and America, and we ought to pause to think about what he and others are saying about this conflict.

Let's get something straight about the Kosovo crisis: This is a civil war. Kosovo is a province of Serbia, and has been part of Serbia for several hundred years. In fact, Serbia considers Kosovo to be the "cradle" of Serbian nationhood. The Kosovo Liberation Army is a group of Kosovar Albanians that was formed a few years back to violently take control of the region. It has been documented that they have blown up cafes filled with civilians, killed police officers and waged a guerrilla war against Serbian officials. Kosovo is not a "struggling democracy", as president Clinton implied in his speech to the nation on Wednesday. NATO's leaders have taken their side against the Serbians in this civil war, with most Americans and Europeans knowing absolutely nothing about them or their tactics.

Why can it be said that we've "taken their side"? Because the "peace agreement" that the NATO nations were promoting at the conference in France last month did two things: It forced Serbia to recognize this band of terrorists as the legitimate government of Kosovo, giving them full autonomy over the region and it would force Serbia to have 28,000 NATO troops stationed on what is Serbian soil for an indefinite time. Albanian terrorist thus gained what they set out to accomplish in November of 1918, when they established a "Kosovo Committee" to terrorize Yugoslavia in an attempt to win Albanian-Muslim control of Kosovo from the ethnic Serbs, and when Albanians enthusiastically fought with the Nazis in an "SS" division against Serbia during World War Two. (If NATO succeeds, and Serbia relents, they plan to deploy German troops in Kosovo as "peacekeepers". This will surely be welcomed "warmly" by the Serbs who live there!) That time under the Nazis - only three years- represents the only time in modern history that Kosovo has ever been controlled by anyone other than Serbs.

It's no wonder the Albanian terrorists - whom even a State Department official likened to the IRA on Tuesday - signed on to this agreement. It was clearly one-sided in favor of the KLA, and met their objectives. However, even many among the KLA's membership didn't like the idea of the agreement being forced upon them from outside forces, and wanted to continue fighting. It was only after threats and high-pressure tactics by Madeline Albright and others that the leaders of the group "caved in", and are now being represented as the "side that wants peace"...or is that just a "piece", of Serbia?

This American/NATO "alliance" with the KLA raises the interesting legal question: What nation in history has EVER forced a "peace treaty" onto another nation when it refused to sign onto it, even if the other side does? If there is such an example in history, it was wrong then, and it is now. Another interesting point that no one has brought up is this: Does the United States have the right or authority to force nations to obey its will? Why does a sovereign nation like Serbia have to accept our dictates? Just because it is small, and presumably can't fight back? That's a terribly poor moral justification.

One more thing: When one side refuses to sign a peace agreement with a rebel force within its own borders that it feels is unfair, one-sided, and infringes on its national sovereignty, does that make them "enemies of peace"? We need to examine the super-heated rhetoric of Madeline Albright and her State Department assistants carefully for what is commonly known in the U.S. as "hate speech" against the Serbs.

"BUT WAIT!", you may cry, "The news man said there was Ethnic Cleansing going on. That's just UNACCEPTABLE." Yes, it is, and this argument has some merit, but due consideration of some demographic facts, instead of purely emotional rhetoric, is clearly in order here. The ethnic Serbians were "cleansed" themselves from the area by Muslim Turks as far back as 1690, and right up until the 1870s, there was genocide practiced against the Serbs on a massive scale. In the last 50 years, the number of Albanians in the Kosovo region has QUADRUPLED, mainly from refuges from Albania, and the number of Serbs has decreased BY HALF. And word is just now beginning to surface about the Muslim Kosovars' systematic "cleansing"of Serb Christians in the last 30 years - something that hasn't made the evening news quite yet. These facts help us to put into perspective the fluidity of nationalities and borders in the region, as well as the ancient nature of migrations, wars, hatreds and "cleansings", and helps to put an end to the hysteria about widespread "ethnic cleansing", which also happens, unfortunately, in every war as a natural reaction when people simply flee the fighting.

And ever since I - along with most other people - was duped during the Persian Gulf War with a story about Iraqi soldiers stealing Kuwaiti incubators and throwing the babies that were in them on the floor to die (a lie perpetrated by the Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S. before a Congressional Committee), I've been very wary of horror stories told to "whip up" moral indignation so that we'll enter a war, and would urge caution until you've heard from a Serbian official or two to balance these stories with Kosovar ALBANIAN atrocities.

We also need to look at things in context. Why aren't we threatening to bomb Turkey for their "unacceptable" slaughter of 37,000 ethnic Kurdish residents in the past few years - a group America ACTUALLY PROMISED to protect after the Gulf War? The media is reporting that in 1995, the Serbian government initiated a new campaign to change the ethnic composition of Kosovo offering free land and interest-free loans to Serbs to live in Kosova. If that's an "unacceptable" crime of ethnic cleansing, why aren't we threatening to bomb Israel, since its leaders, like Milosovic, have initiated campaigns to change the ethnic composition of the overwhelmingly-Arab West Bank by settling radical Israelis on land there, and building dozens of provocative new settlements? The answer to both questions are painfully obvious to all: Serbia is a little nation we feel we can "kick around" and defeat after a "splendid little war". A frightening racial question comes to mind when we ask ourselves why the U.S. and the West didn't interfere in Rwanda, when a much more brutal "ethnic cleansing"and tribal warfare was taking place.

Having said that, I understand that some Serbian military leaders and soldiers have clearly been guilty of terror tactics against civilians in the past, and it continues in some cases today. To deny this would be pig-headed and would make us seem blind to the truth. But those cases would be considered by all people as war crimes against humanity, and should be dealt with appropriately in either an international court or in some other legal venue in which the accused can receive a fair trial and the murdered and maimed could receive fair justice. A full scale war, in which we ally ourselves with a small band of terrorists is NOT appropriate in this situation, despite how newspapers and TV reporters fan the flames of these incidents to create a war-like atmosphere.

Let's examine some other reasons why we should not have engaged in this war against Serbia:

1. The allies - America, mainly - have no strategy, other than bombing Serbia until it "changes its mind". Let's look into the history books once more to see the fallacy of this ill-conceived "strategy". In the 1940s, Nazi Germany also began an assault against Serbia, the traditional enemy of Germany's wartime ally, Fascist Croatia. They started just like we did, only better: they bombed the capitol of Serbia, Belgrade, into oblivion with massive air strikes, killing thousands of civilians. Then, they sent 32 armored divisions into Serbia. During the offensive, they- with their Nazi Albanian allies- ordered that for every German soldier who was shot, 100 Serb civilians would be killed, and for every German soldier who was injured, 50 Serb civilians would be killed. Yet, after 700,000 German casualties, the Germans were defeated by the Serbs. End of story. Yes, America has "smart bombs", and yes, we have Stealth technology, but once again, we don't have the common sense to look in the history books. Like Bill, many people have only read about the region's history on Wednesday, March 24th- AS WE BEGAN BOMBING IT. What's frightening is that most people have not and will not read or hear about it, or if they do, they will get a slanted, distorted view of it, and will instantly be GUNG HO all in favor of "supportin' the troops!". Already, a poll shows 46% of Americans support the war, though in the same poll, most- 58% - do NOT support Americans dying for Kosovo's independence. It sounds like we've got some thinking to about what a "war" really is. My advice: turn off the video game called CNN and read some World War Two history - or better yet, read about another civil war America meddled in, taking the side of brutal, incompetent rebels with no clear goals and no clear exit strategy. That place was Vietnam.

2. This action is not supported by Russia. Russia is really the lynchpin here. The Russian Foreign Minister, who was coming from Russia to America for an official visit on Tuesday, was ordered by Russia's leaders to turn his plane around in protest and anger when they heard about NATO's intention to bomb its traditional ally. You'll remember that in World War One, Russian intervention in the region caused the chain reaction leading to a global war. Little has changed. The Russian ITAR-TASS news service reported on Tuesday night that Russia will IMMEDIATELY supply powerful armaments to the Serbs and provide, "other military assistance" to them, this according to Gennady Seleznyov, the Speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament. He also said, "If NATO opts for the use of force in Kosovo, it would violate international law, the U.N. Charter, and will actually become disguised aggression." They are taking their case to the United Nations, and even America's power on the Security Council can't stop it, since Russia is supported by China, one of the other five members. The situation could become exceedingly dangerous very quickly, especially if Serbia bombs NATO bases in Hungary or uses Russian-supplied NUCLEAR weapons against Kosovo or the "allies", both of which are real possibilities if they feel painted into a corner. Watch Russia very carefully in the next few days. At the very least, this could re-start the Cold War, and bring the Communists back to power in Russia.

3. It makes a local disturbance an international one. Some, including Bill Clinton, have said, "If we turn a blind eye to this, it will explode." Garbage. The truth is that there were SEVERAL wars in the Balkans in the 19th and 20th century- and many before even then. The only time it "exploded" is when western powers: Russia, Austria, Germany and Britain, involved themselves in these conflicts, as we are doing now. The fact that Russia is strongly supporting Serbia (JUST as it did in World War I), should send a chill up our spines. Just as World War One was not our fight, nor is this any of our business. It poses no threat to America. If it grows wider, it should be contained by the Europeans, who have an economy that literally rivals our own - well into the trillions of dollars in Gross Domestic Product - and military forces as advanced in on-the-ground fighting as any American unit, plus probably better training in mountainous terrain. When the American president says, "We must make Europe safe for our children", he needs to be reminded that America is not a member of the European Union, and should be reminded of another president's words, who said that we must enter Europe's wars "to make the world safe for democracy." (It was Woodrow Wilson, and it didn't work, by the way.) When the American Secretary of State makes the almost remarkably Nazi-like statement, "There will be ORDER in Yugoslavia", as she did this week, that should give anyone pause to think about the appropriateness of our actions.

4. Americans - as usual- will pay the price both in money and blood. While it's true that America is a part of NATO, in which we are supposedly responsible for only HALF of its troops and activities, that's clearly not what's really going on. Of the 400 planes bombing Serbia, more than 250 are U.S. planes. Guess who gets to do the ground fighting, if this air campaign doesn't work out? Yup. American troops are already stationed in Bosnia (after a promised "six month" limit to their mission, which began in 1995), and most Americans don't know that we're already stationing troops in another Balkan country, Macedonia, to the tune of 7,000 soldiers. What happens after this little conflict if Serbia is over? You guessed it: Most of those 28,000 "peacekeeping" spots in Kosovo will be Americans. In purely financial terms, the Gulf War, and later bombing missions, cost the U.S. taxpayer a BILLION dollars A DAY. What will this little war cost us?

5. If the war is successful, it really will create a vacuum in the Balkans. If Serbia's military is completely destroyed -and it's been promised by Pentagon officials that it will be - then what of the future of the region? Serbia will be vulnerable to attack from another of its neighbors, or it may descend into civil war itself. Will we be there to support the other groups seeking to grab a scrap of a disintegrating Serbia? Will we send more troops into Bosnia to restrain the Croatians and Muslims when they realize that the Serb "republic" that was created by the Dayton accords will no longer be supportable, militarily, by Serbia, and attempt to regain that land? Were any of these options EVEN THOUGHT THROUGH at the Pentagon and in the ivory towers at NATO?

6. We are demonizing one man - again. Many people are deeply troubled by the news media and State Department officials demonizing the leader of Serbia. For example, James Rubin, State Department spokesman, said during the negotiations in Paris, "Your time is up, Mr. Milosovic." I'm not particularly a fan of Slobodan Milosovic. Most Americans wouldn't have voted for him, nor would we have supported his programs. He's an unreconstructed Communist, for one. HOWEVER, Americans are NOT citizens of Serbia. We are not affected by him, despite scare tactics about a "greater war" or about "ethnic cleansing", already dealt with, above. The West demonized Saddam Hussein in 1990, too, calling him "another Hitler", and "WORSE than Hitler", yet, he remains in power, stronger than ever, seemingly supported by many in Iraq and in the Arab world. America still demonizes Fidel Castro, believing that it's HIM ALONE who is keeping Communism alive in Cuba. This clearly isn't so, and it clearly isn't so in Serbia, since Milosovic has a vast support base of ordinary people who are more afraid of the West's bullying tactics than the misguided, mediocre policies of a Communist-holdover politician. In the past, over and over again, the West has built an individual leader up so far that this insignificant and mediocre political leader appears to his people as the last, strongest bulwark against a much greater, more evil foe - the West itself. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

Conclusion:

"We are at the brink" U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared the week leading up to the bombings, and he's right. We're at the brink of a frightening new era in history. If this attack on Serbia is successful in creating a new "Nation of Kosova" in the Balkans, it will be an era in which American troops will be called upon to "settle" more and more civil wars and crises around the world, and our military will become aggressive "nation builders", rather than a defensive fighting force. Despite what some interventionists are saying - that this is the "price" of being a lone "superpower", and that we cannot "hide" from our supposed "responsibility" to police the world - Americans need to learn from our military failures in Haiti, Somalia, and elsewhere that we simply cannot take sides in conflicts that are really civil wars, and that by doing so, we're setting ourselves up for new resentments and hatreds to take the place of those in Serbia, Kosovo and other places around the globe. This could easily lead to terrorism, or worse, even on American soil. If we don't learn this lesson now, Americans will be doomed to fight and die in every nation in the world in the coming century, because civil wars are bound to occur in nearly all of them some time or another. If we don't get over this feeling that we know what's best for the world, we will end up doing just that.

I urge you to contact your elected officials TODAY, and tell them to find a way to solve this problem, short of forcing a solution - OUR solution - onto one participant of a civil war in a distant land that is not our land to govern or control.

Stephen Abbott is president of Stephen Abbott Communications, a research and publicity firm in Manchester, New Hampshire.