Barkley, A couple of points. I don't believe that Milosevic ever had any intention of cleansing Kosovo of Albanians. I believe that is all NATO propaganda. Indeed, when some of the opposition to him proposed expelling Albanians and Croats from Serbia, Milosevic opposed it. Besides which, could he really think he could do it without precipitating UN sanctioned war and occupation of Yugoslavia. Nah, this is just a pipe dream invented by NATO to justify its criminal ways. You still evidently believe this invasion was motivated by humanitarian concerns which virtually everyone has demonstrated is a crock. The second point I would make: Assume you are leader of Yugoslavia (or Serbia) and you were fighting against a terrorist insurgency who are trying to expell the resident Serbs and destroy the country and who use the local population as a source of supplies and as a human shield against attempts to quell the insurgency. Now along comes NATO and says: you must a. stop trying to suppress the insurgency; b. agree to break up the country; c. allow us to take over your economy and occupy you (and you will pay the cost of the occupation) or we will bomb you into submission until you agree to those conditions and we occupy the country. Now we all know that the conditions were set at a level that guaranteed that Yugoslavia could not and would not agree meaning that NATO all along planned an invasion first by air, then followed by occupation when the Serbs threw in the towel. What would you do. I would hunker down and prepare to defend my territory. How would I do that? I would clear a corde sanitaire between the potential aggressor by land and my main base of population -- that is I would scorch the earth between Albania and Serbia which would make it possible to make any invaders pay dearly for land gains. I would also remove all the population from my defensive positions that could potentially aid or act as human shields for the aggressor. Can you think of any alternative since NATO refused to consider the alternative offered by the Yugoslav parliament of a UN force and autonomy for Kosovo within the Yugoslav federation? In other words, what else could the Yugoslavs do that would be militarily defensible? What would you have done? You, yourself, point out that there has been little or no cleansing in the North which, itself, should be sufficient evidence that the Yugoslav strategy is defensive and not offensive. Finally, a small footnote on the question of Yugoslav economic aid for Kosovo and its relatively poor economic performance. First, given the figures I posted earlier, there was little *relative* decline in economic performance in Kosovo over the post-war period. Tito, by the way, held to the motto "a rising tide lifts all boats" and so made less effort to specifically help Kosovo and the south generally (Montenegro and Macedonia, Bosnia and even souther Serbia). The fault line in economic development falls more or less along the line of the longest standing Ottoman/European line of influence, a point made to me (documented by figures) by a Beograd economist who was, incidently, a strong political opponent of Milosevic. After Tito died, increased efforts were made to funnel funds into Kosovo and the other poorer republics and provinces through the "Fund for the more rapid development of the slower development republics and provinces" (or some such equally awkward and long name. I have their annual reports somewhere here but it is not important.) Indeed, by 1989, this was one of the last federal economic functions, financed by customs duties and republic taxes payable to the federation and very minimal at that. In fact the Fund was a thorn in the side of the Slovenians and Croations who basically refused to pay any more money to those backward and unthankful "neighbours to the south". Indeed, the sentiment in Slovenia and Croatia was to let Kosovo go -- good riddance to bad rubbish. Serbia was the defender of Kosovo, but it was one of the issues that ultimately triggered the breakup. Why did Kosovo remain so backward? Three factors come immediately to mind. Their education system did not favour technical and scientific/vocational education. As one university professor complained to me, "how can you get economic development when 80 % of the university students are studying Albanian language, literature and history?" Secondly, was the birth rate which was high even by third world standards. Third, was the treatment of women. In the rural areas women were still placed behind 8 foot walls so that they were not visible to men. The story I was told was of one women who was elected head of her workers council. The next day she resigned after showing up at work black and blue. When asked why, she said when her husband had heard she had been elected to the workers' council, he beat her demanding that she quit. Also, although I don't have any figures to back up the allegation, I have been told that many girl students were kept out of the schools, particularly after a primary education. Some progress was being made, I believe, on these social problems during the 60s and 70s, but with the adoption of the new constitution in 1974 which gave Kosovo its independence, this lead to the establishment of a separate muslim/Albanian education and health system even though the universities, health clinics etc. were still maintained by Serbia and available to all Kosovars. In this sense, I think that any discrimination against Albanians in the period up to 1989 and even after was self-imposed. But whatever, the problems of economic development in Kosovo were not caused by Serb neglect or discrimination. Exactly the opposite. Let us hope for an early peace for the sake of all children, Serb, Albanian, Canadian, American, etc. Why must they all pay for the sins of their parents? Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:6974] Re: Re: Re: Rosser on Kurds/Kosovars Date sent: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:07:31 -0400 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Paul, > Well, for starters I certainly don't support > teaching people that "Serbs are monsters," > although I might not oppose teaching that > about S.M., who is, as far as I am concerned. > One difference between what happened > in the US and what is happening in Kosmet > is that in the former we are talking about a > small minority of the population being cleansed > (no, I don't support it), and they were not expelled > from the country; although being sent to concentration > camps is very far from benign treatment. > In Kosmet we have a small minority (around > 10%, right?) that is expelling the vast majority, > not just internally displacing them (that too). > Also, one can dismiss it as imperialist propaganda, > but the reports that S.M. did indeed have a plan for > what is going is far from incredible, even if it is also > far from being definitely proven. The very rapidity and > apparently systematic nature of how it has been > carried out suggests that there was prior planning of > this. However, I also have no doubt that even if there > was such a plan, it would not have been initiated with > the rapidity and violence that it has been if there had > been no bombing. NATO is certainly partially culpable > in this, but far from totally culpable. > Barkley Rosser > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 9:41 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:6935] Re: Re: Rosser on Kurds/Kosovars > > > What is wrong with the logic of of the proposition that: > > a: there was no ethnic cleansing; > b: NATO declares that unless Yugoslavia allows itself to be > occupied and Kosovo be declared independent, it will be bombed > regardless of how it treats its minority; and > c: Yugoslavia decides that the only way it can protect its territory > from foreign invasion is to 'clear the region of possible enemy > troups and collaborators' (like the US and Canada did in the > second world war by clearing the west coast (i.e. ethnic cleansing) > of Japanese). > I disagreed with the expulsion of the Japanese as much as I > dislike the expulsion of the Albanians. But from a military > standpoint I understand it and, in the case of Yugoslavia, the > military argument is much stronger than the one for the internment > of the Japanese by the US and Canada in WW2. > Brad seems to be in denial -- it is NATO that initiated the ethnic > cleansing, not the Serbs!!!! There would be no -- repeat no -- ethnic > cleansing if NATO had not tried to cleanse Kosovo of the Serbs > through its bombing campaign. > And now we, in Canada, are beginning to get the backlash of the > Serb/Milosevic demonization campaign -- Serb kids in Canadian > schools being taught by their teachers that the Serbs are evil > ethnic oppressors -- reminiscent of the 1930s in Germany. Don't > talk to me about the attempt to make every Muslim responsible for > the terrorist acts of the KLA when you are attempting to make > every Serb and Yugoslav responsible for the terrorist acts of NATO > and the military response to those terrorist acts. > > > >It is we, members of NATO, that have caused the ethnic cleansing by > > >our bombing > > > > > >Paul Phillips > > > > > > Why this strange and pathetic attempt to deny the agency of those who are > > undertaking the ethnic cleansing? And why this attempt to make every > Muslim > > in the region bar responsbility for the terrorist deeds of the KLA? > > > > > > Brad DeLong > > > > > >
[PEN-L:6990] Re: Re: Re: Re: Rosser on Kurds/Kosovars
ts99u-1.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.154.224] Tue, 18 May 1999 17:09:00 -0500
