I don't understand why you think that Milosevic has been victorious. Damage to
Serbia's infrastructure including Kosovo is untold billions. Eventually he will
have to settle for some
type of de facto occupation of Kosovo by the UN and/or NATO. Albanians will move
back to Kosovo
under the protection of this force. What is to prevent the UN protectorate
eventually opting for independence? Plus, Milosevic's freedom of action will be
severely restrained by the need to get funds from the IMF and the World Bank to
rebuild Serbia.
THe best he can hope for is some deal that guarantees he will not be tried
as a war criminal. Maybe he can arrange a baby Doc trip to a Mediterranean
Island hideaway with his family or a nice comfortable retirement in South
Africa.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
> Louis,
> You are correct that it is as "hard as shooting fish
> in a barrel" to figure out what is really going on with this
> situation in Yugoslavia. I confess to playing the "kick
> Milosevic" role because the others who might play it
> have all left pen-l. I understand from lbo-talk that Chris
> Burford feels that he must "censor" his messages to
> your list because you do not allow any anti-Milosevic
> diatribes on the grounds that they are "objectivly pro-
> imperialist." Tsk tsk.
> I have already laid out several longer and shorter
> term factors that have led to where we are now, ranging
> from longer term imperialist plotting against Yugoslavia
> (presumably your fave, which if that is all there is to it does
> make Milosevic a "heroic anti-imperialist socialist" whoopee!!).
> But obviously I don't think that is all there is to it, and the old
> boy is responsible for a bunch of it, even if his evil is not
> also the sole source of all the troubles.
> Paul Phillips is certainly right that there was a problem
> in 1989 with Albanians violating rights of Serbs. Unfortunately
> Milosevic's reaction overdid it and triggered a lot of bad
> stuff throughout the old Yugoslavia that might not have happened
> otherwise. Serb rights will be defended now because there will
> be few Albanians left in Kosmet soon, and despite a likely
> future ongoing campaign by the UCK/KLA, it is likely to stay
> that way. There will be no ground invasion and the bombing
> obviously is doing nothing to help the Albanians one bit, quite
> the contrary.
> BTW, just so I don't repeat stuff that you know (like the latest
> reported estimates of refugee numbers), yesterday's Washington
> Post had several related and interesting articles on war-related
> decisionmaking in Washington (I'm sure you can find them quickly).
> Anyway, they depict Madeleine Albright as the grand strategist
> of the war and the main force behind it, the leader of the so-called
> "Munichite" faction in the Clinton administration that has been
> pushing for a more militarily aggressive stance in the region
> since 1993, against the "Vietnamite" faction, initially led by
> Colin Powell. The Munichite faction finally got control of policy
> in the Balkans in 1995 and deluded itself that bombing could
> achieve demanded goals without ground forces. Apparently the
> day-to-day manager of tactics is National Security Adviser Sandy
> Berger who is more cautious than Albright and is the main
> reason that there will be no ground invasion. Albright is apparently
> sympathetic to the British support for one, but realizes that she is
> alone on that one in the administration.
> If one wants to pinpoint a more specific anti-imperialist
> issue, it really does have to do with NATO itself and its new
> aggressiveness, which is what has the Russians, and to a lesser
> extent the Chinese as well, angry (although I think for the Chinese
> it is US behavior that is the issue, not NATO's). NATO was supposed to be a
> defensive alliance. Albright has pushed it into outright aggression. it is
> unclear what the economic motive here is, although several theories have
> been pushed on these lists. But again, the skepticism of the US right wing
> is a warning that they are all pretty weak, at least from the US perspective
> if not necessarily from the European one.
> As near as I can see, the one clear positive of Milosevic's
> victory (which has happened but has not yet been accepted by
> NATO) is the black eye it gives to such an aggressive stance
> by NATO. Otherwise, the outcome is pretty dismal, as near as
> I can see it, and I do not wish to see those on this list deluding
> themselves about its nature.
> Barkley Rosser
