Ken,
Why should he settle? As long as NATO bombs
he is unremovable by his own people. He can last
as long as he wants. Who cares how much damage
and suffering his people experience? (his view)
The economy was already a mess, so now there will
be an excuse for why it is a mess.
As for NATO, well, the opinion polls in most
countries (the US now as well) are gradually, and in
some cases dramatically, turning against support for
the war. They'll probably continue to do so.
Milosevic is victorious on the ground. The UCK/KLA
has been reduced to a few pathetic pockets, although they
will now be very strong in the camps in Albania. But he is
creating a cordon sanitaire through expulsions in Metohija
that will make it more difficult for them to operate out of those
bases, and their artillery attacks on those bases is putting
pressure for them to be pulled back from the border. NATO
will not send in a ground invasion for a variety of well known
reasons, which is the only thing that could undo his victory
on the ground.
So, all he has to do is wait it out until world pressure and
public opinion in the NATO countries wearies of the various
tragedies and absurdities and NATO sues for peace,
presumably getting the Russians to come up with some
suitable face-saving fig leaf for the inevitable humiliation.
How can Milosevic lose?
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 12:54 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:6947] Re: Kurds and Kosovars
>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
>
>
>
