By Andrew Gray
|
BELGRADE, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Last month's suicide attacks on the United States have highlighted persistent ethnic divisions in the Balkans and raised questions about the future of U.S. involvement in the volatile region. In a reversal of the trend seen in many places elsewhere, Kosovo Albanian and Bosnian Muslims lit candles for the dead and expressed solidarity with the United States while many Serbs and Macedonians, Orthodox Christians, were decidedly ambivalent. Western-leaning reformers have run Serbia for nearly a year but memories of U.S.-led NATO bombing over Belgrade's policy in Kosovo are still fresh. Serbia was one of the few European states not to ask citizens to observe three minutes' silence for the victims of the attacks. The host of a television phone-in show in Montenegro, Serbia's sister republic in the Yugoslav federation, even asked after the killings: "Does the U.S. deserve such revenge?" Station managers pulled the question and later apologised but 480 callers phoned in to answer yes, while 180 said no. Serb and Macedonian officials have offered condolences to the U.S. but many have also said they have long been fighting "terrorists" -- a reference to ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and elsewhere who have been assisted by Washington.
TERRORISTS OR PARTNERS? The reactions underscore a key problem for U.S. President George W. Bush's campaign to "crush terrorism" -- those regarded as terrorists by some nations have often been viewed very differently by others, including the United States itself. Several ethnic Albanian leaders in Kosovo, partners of the U.S. in building self-government in the province, are frequently denounced as terrorists by Serbian politicians who demand that they be swiftly transferred to the U.N. war crimes tribunal. "At this moment in the world, various terrorist acts are disregarded and terrorism is not taken seriously unless it affects a certain party directly -- the only world superpower, the U.S.," Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica said. "I hope that terrorism in the Balkans will (now) be looked upon differently in the U.S.," he told Politika newspaper. Some Serbs and other Slavs see the attacks and their perceived link to Islamic extremism as proof they were right to crack down on Muslims in their own areas, even if many Albanians and Bosnians practise a very mild form of Islam. Opponents of Serbs in the past decade of Balkan wars see great irony in their denunciation of terrorism. Under Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia was seen by many neighbours as a prime practitioner of state-sponsored terror against civilians -- in the siege of Sarajevo, the Srebrenica massacre or the repression of Kosovo Albanians which led to NATO bombing. "In trying to conceal their monstrous happiness at the American tragedy, (Serbs) want to use the mist to again present Albanians as terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists and drug smugglers," commentator Zenun Celaj said in Kosovo's Zeri daily.
PEACEKEEPING ROLE IN QUESTION But many are more concerned about the long-term implications of the attacks on a U.S. presence widely seen as essential to the achievement of a measure of stability in the Balkans. "The basic question is whether the attacks will result in a rapid loss of interest in the Balkans followed by a drawdown in troop numbers," author Tim Judah wrote in a recent article for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. During the U.S. presidential campaign, members of the Bush camp questioned whether U.S. troops should still be in the Balkans at all and suggested their time would be better spent in areas of global strategic importance such as The Gulf. That rhetoric cooled after Bush assumed office and the administration adopted a mantra of solidarity with its European NATO allies: "We came in together and we'll go out together". Some analysts believe last month's attacks will strengthen those voices heard during the campaign and embolden them to have another try at getting troops out of the Balkans. But others think Washington's efforts, in response to the attacks, to build a "global coalition against terror" proves the administration is now committed to internationalism and cultivating relationships in which allies work together. Some argue the U.S. could even adopt a tougher stance against extremism in the Balkans to back up its policy that terrorism must be fought resolutely wherever it is found. "It could go either way -- or both," one senior Western diplomat said of the future direction of U.S. policy. "We are in uncharted territory."
BOSNIA COULD BE CUTBACK TARGET Most analysts expect the U.S. at least to push forward discussions on how Balkan peacekeeping should look in the future. Does NATO need two almost completely separate forces in Bosnia and Kosovo or could they be combined in some way? "I think they'll be pressing hard for opportunities to review the military forces here," said another Western envoy. "There is scope, I think, for rationalising the NATO presence in the region." Some U.S. officials have already suggested European allies can help with the "war on terror" by doing more in the Balkans, allowing Washington to focus its resources elsewhere. After a meeting with NATO ministers in Brussels last week, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told reporters Washington's allies had to be put on notice that some U.S. military assets would be in higher demand now. The U.S. has around 10,000 soldiers in the Balkans, about 6,000 of them in Kosovo and more than 3,000 in Bosnia. Some diplomats believe Bosnia, a base for U.S. troops since 1995, would be the more likely target for any cutbacks. "Certainly, we think in Bosnia there are a lot of civil functions that are being performed by the military that would be better performed by other people and obviously (that) would relieve the burden on the military," Wolfowitz said. (Additional reporting by Carol Giacomo in Washington) |
spacer.gif
Description: GIF image
