> > >"As can now be seen, the accord contains provisions that would have > > >subjected the whole of Yugoslavia to NATO occupation. The official > > >presentation repeatedly stated that it was a matter of > autonomy for Kosovo, > > >which would be secured by the stationing of a 'peace force' in Kosovo. > > >However, > > >"The text of Article 8 of this Appendix reads: 'NATO personnel shall > > >enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and > equipment, free > > >and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the > FRY [Federal > > >Republic of Yugoslavia] including associated airspace and territorial > > >waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right > of bivouac, > > >maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilitites > as required > > >for support, training, and operations.' > thanks to Tom Walker for forwarding above to list, it should convince > laptop bombardiers to fold down their screens...Michael Hoover Not at all. There is a disconnect between "subjected the whole of Yugoslavia to NATO occupation" and the last two sentences. If the Allies are trying to protect Kosova, which is bounded by territory in which the Serb military can move freely, they would need the right to chase some sumbitches who had violated the terms of the agreement if they fled across the border. This would be worrisome because it could be abused, but so could an agreement without such a clause. mbs
