And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is one of the most cogent compact histories of relevant information I
have read on the current situation..the one thing I would agree with is the
attempt to create a strong NATO, though results apparently are the opposite
so far as it becomes increasingly obvious that NATO is a mere extension of
Albright/Clinton policy and hence heavily resented by several member
nations. It is my belief that Russia and former republics are the actual
targets.Ish
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
via a History Teachers list
Humility is not one of my weaknesses, but I try to be a reasonably
responsible participant here, and try not to assume any greater degree of
knowledge than the rest of you--unless you give me reason to. I am
constantly reminded in the classroom and in life generally how far from
"the mark" I can be. In this case, however, I claim a perspective and
understanding of this situation that few of you probably have. I doubt
that any of you have ever been in the former Yugoslavia (except, perhaps,
SFC Jeffers). I'm not sure I agree with current policy and I'm not sure
exactly where we are going with it. I do not propose any grand scheme
below; I simply lay out for you some facts you may not have considered
(and in no particular order).
PERSONAL BACKGROUND (i.e. my basis for claiming this understanding):
1. One year at the Defense Language Institute as a student of
Serbo-Croatian language (and South Slav culture).
2. U.S. Army at Ft. Bragg, NC, assignments focusing on Yugoslavia
1980-82.
3. Short trip into Yugoslavia (Belgrade and Zagreb) in 1980.
4. J2, US Contingent of the United Nations Protection Force for the
Former Yugoslavia, Zagreb, Croatia, June-Sept. 1994. (A blue beret guy)
5. Assignment to the History Office, HQ, U.S. European Command,
April-December 1997. (Dealing with the history of U.S. operations in the
Balkans.)
POLITICAL FACTS
1. Kosovo is, and always has been, an integral part of Serbia and, later,
the Serbian Republic of the Yugoslav Federation.
2. Kosovo became an autonomous province of the Republic of Serbia c.
1972, and came under the political control of the Albanian majority.
4. The Albanian majority politically repressed the Serbian majority.
(Please note that I write "politically repressed" a situation that did not
include, as far as I know, any significant element of physical
repression, harassment, or terror.)
5. Large numbers of the Serbian population of Kosovo migrated out.
6. The Milosovich government cancelled Kosovo's position as an autonomous
province, returning effective control to Belgrade (i.e. Serbs).
7. Milosovich used Kosovo as a springboard to, eventually, the Yugoslav
leadership.
HISTORICAL FACTS
1. Kosovo is the heart of Old Serbia
2. THE PEOPLES OF THE BALKANS HAVE LIVED TOGETHER IN PEACE MORE OFTEN
THAN THEY HAVE LIVED IN WAR!
3. The current violence (since c. 1990) is rooted in anomosities dating
from World War II. They are only expressed in more deeply historical
terms. (See Gliny, _The Fall of Yugoslavia: The third Balkan War_.
4. During the past decade ethnic cleansing has been carried out by all
sides in the former Yugoslavia, not just the Serbs.
5. European and particularly American rhetoric has focused largely on the
Serbian ethnic cleansing for three reasons:
a. They have been more effective and efficient than any other element.
b. They were able to maintain control of most to the heavy equipment
of the old Yugoslav Army. More and heavier weapons meant they could
inflict more casualities.
c. The Croats and Bosnians had far better PR people.
6. The Serbs practice a negative, self-destructive form of PR, and
seem to glory in it.
7. All sides are guilty of warcrimes in the former Yugoslavia.
8. The reason the peoples of the former Yugoslavia cannot solve their own
problems politically is that despite its benign nature the Communist
government of Tito ensured that there was never any political opposition,
thus depriving the Yugoslav peoples of any institutions (or even
understanding) of a "normal" political process and the concept of
political compromise.
THE COMPLICATING "DIRTY LITTLE SECRET"
1. Europeans generally consider the Albanians at the bottom of the
cultural ladder, probably only one rung above the Roma.
2. Albania, itself, is barely functional, and (according to some reliable
reports) a significant number of Albanians are involved in the drug trade.
3. The Balkans is a major drug route into Europe.
4. In parts of Italy the Albanians have displaced the Mafia. (Italy has
a relatively large Albanian population.)
5. Al Gore's recent comments about "diversity" in Europe are probably
seen as unworthy of even a serious response by most Europeans. The need
for and the appropriateness of diversity in a national population is a
concept only understood in the United States. (One can argue that it
is understood imperfectly here.)
THE SERBIAN PEOPLE
The Serbian people themselves have displayed unity so far in this
situation because they do not understand why the rest of the world does
not see the crimes of the Bosnians, Croats, and now the Albanians. Even
those Serbs who could somehow break the millstone on Serbian history and
enter the 21st Century as the Europeans they truly are cannot understand
how a seemingly all powerful Western Europe and America can be so blind as
to not see history as the Serbs understand it.
The above uncoordinated statements only touch the surface but they serve
to show the Gordian-like problem that has been simplified in the press and
in the minds of Euro-American (particularly American) planners. This does
not relieve the Serbs (or any others) of their guilt, but it does suggest
that one might be forgiven for shouting the Shakespeare/FDR curse, "a
pleague on both (all) their houses," and building a wall around the whole
place and walking away.
OUR INTERESTS (somewhat simplified).
1. We have no direct interests in the Balkans.
2. This problem is of critical interest to Europeans.
3. The only truly workable "European" institution is NATO (at least up to
this point).
4. IT IS IN AMERICAN VITAL INTERESTS FOR NATO TO WORK, AND TO BE SEEN TO
WORK.
a. NATO is the mechanism by which we will be able to integrate the
nations of the former Warsaw Pact into a liberal, democratic, free Europe.
b. NATO is the mechanism by which the United States remains a
significant "player" in Europe.
c. A united Europe is as strong as the U.S. in all aspects of modern
life and culture (including military aspects if it so chose).
5. It is probably not in American interests for any other European
institution other than NATO (which we effectively run) to be effective.
[It occures to me, as I write this, that the U.S. is rapidly assuming the
position vis-a-vis a united Europe, that Great Britain occupied vis-a-vis
continental Europe in the 18th and 19th century.]
ARE WE READY TO MAKE THE "RIGHT" DECISION?
While I firmly believe that all the above is true, it is, when we consider
the moral issues involved, just so much BS. Why anyone does something is
immaterial if what they are doing is immoral on the scale of the
operations currently being conducted by the Serbs. It seems to me that
these are our options:
1. Decide whither current Serbian actions are acceptable in a "civilized"
world. If the answer is no, then one must accept the probability that
force (beyond air power) will have to be used.
2. If you do not see Serbian actions as actions that cannot be tolerated
in a civilized world, then you have to decide whither our interests with
regard to NATO are sufficient to keep us engaged in Europe.
The fundamental problems with the Balkans are:
1. The situation is forcing us to confront the question of whither, in
the post-Communist world, we are the world's policeman.
2. It is also forcing us to look at the international situation in a more
sophisticated way, one at direct odds with our traditionally isolationist
and anti-intellectual vision of ourselves.
Part of the rambling nature of this way too long posting is due to just
getting back from the annual meeting of the Society for Military History.
Last night a senior colleague and significant figure in the profession
related this story to me.
As we went to war against Iraq in 1991 he received a call from a friend
in New York, a well-placed and prominent figure in journalism and
letters. My colleague is a senior professor at a major military
institution and his friend called to wish him "good luck."
"Good luck?" he said, somewhat purplexed, since he had no idea what his
friend was talking about.
"Ya, you're the only guy I know associated with the military and I just
called to wish you guys good luck."
Last time you all had the option of watching a war unfold on TV like a
made for HBO movie. This time you are probably going to have to pay for
it. As much as I like and respect the Serbian people I know in my heart
what the right decision is, but I doubt that many Americans have the
courage to make it--unless they can get someone else to to it for them.
If there are those of you who are truly pacifists I wish you the strength
of Janette Rankin and hope you will act like Joan Biaz and not Jane
Fonda.
Forgive the length and my presumptious comments about expertise.
If there are any of you who have actually been in the former Yugoslavia or
have immigrated since the beginning of "the troubles" I would dearly like
to hear your comments here or privately. If you just want to pass on what
your second or third generation [fill in the correct ethnic group] friends
and neighbors "feel" don't bother. Some of the most radical ethnic
purists in the Balkans are those who have returned from the diaspora.
Ron
Dr. Ronald L. Spiller
History Department
Edinboro University of PA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
