Milutin writes:
> Martin wrote:
> >I can't believe NATO thought Milosevic would roll over when the bombing
> started.  Their plan must have extended past the bombing.  I think NATO
> really didn't anticipate the Serb tactics of sending out a flood of
> refugees, or they would have had supplies ready to be shipped in for them.
> Still, I think a flood of refugees is better than the mass graves found
> after the last war.
>
> Two points, well three...
>
> (1)Why can't the Serb military create mass graves right now?

They can.  I suppose they are.  I think they have been killing since
before the bombing started, and I think it will be shown that the
killing increased when the human rights observers left.

> (2)NATO did anticipate the flood of refugees and did not send
> supplies(until recently).  The point was to "radicalize" the
> populace so they will refuse nothing less but independence for
> Kosovo.

I think some or many Kosovars had already decided to accept nothing
less than independence.  The present action might increase that
number.  That doesn't mean it was the intended purpose of the action.

> (3)The agreement Milosevic wouldn't sign is because it would give
> Kosovo "de facto independence now, with guaranteed de jure
> independence in three years".

I understood he wouldn't sign because there would be NATO troops in
Kosovo.  But, he got his independence form the former Yugoslavia.  Why
should he have the power to prevent Kosovo from taking the same
decision?

> The following is from the Houston Chronicle - Outlook, by Dr. Ronald L.
> Hatchett on Sunday March 28th.  This is just the last bit of it but it is
> what you need to hear.
>
>
> Under the agreement, "Kosovo will have a president, prime minister and
> government, an assembly, its own Supreme Court, constitutional court and
> other courts and prosecutors."
>
> "Kosovo will have the authority to make laws not subject to revision by
> Serbia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including levying taxes,
> instituting programs of economic, scientific, technological, regional and
> social development, conducting foreign relations within its area of
> responsibility in the same manner as a Republic."
>
> For the Kosovo Albanians, the Rambouillet agreement gives them total control
> over the province immediately. The only sacrifice required of them is to
> wait three years before the arrangements are made legally permanent. For the
> Serbs, the Rambouillet agreement means that immediately upon signing they
> lose all sovereignty over Kosovo. Total political control would be in the
> hands of the Albanians and the NATO Civilian Implementation Mission.
> Yugoslav laws would no
> longer apply in Kosovo. Neither would Yugoslavia be able to exercise police
> powers in Kosovo. After three years, these arrangements would be made
> permanent by the "will of the people" - not the people of the whole country
> of Yugoslavia of which Kosovo is supposedly a part, but only by the will of
> the people of Kosovo, who are mainly Albanians.
>
> The Yugoslavian delegation at Rambouillet agreed to give the Albanians
> autonomy in Kosovo - control over their day-to-day lives including
> religious, education and health care systems, and local government
> operations. But they tried to negotiate changes to preserve the right of
> the Yugoslav federal government to determine economic and foreign policy,
> for Yugoslav national law to continue to apply in Kosovo, and for any
> international presence in Kosovo to be limited to observation and advice,
> not control.
>
> The Serbian negotiating efforts were summarily dismissed and the Serbs were
> told they had only two choices: sign the agreement as written or face NATO
> bombing.
>
> What would you have done if you were on the Serb delegation?

I would have agreed to it.  I would have agreed because it would have
eliminated problems for my own region.  I would have agreed because a
federation of the all the states made from regions of the former
Yugoslavia would always be a possibility in the future, and it would
make good sense in the present to let all the separate regions lift
themselves up by their own bootstraps and concentrate on getting
themselves integrated into the European economy, and *then* talk about
forming a federation of those states.

When trying to build something like a federation, it makes sense to
build from the bottom up, rather than by imposing it from the top
down.  Ignoring the American Indians, which we had no trouble doing
for hundreds of years, the United States was built by letting states
join the union.  Granted, there would be fireworks if California tried
to leave now, but the states joined the union because it made sense to
join the union.  States are joining the European Union because it
makes sense to join the union.  Norway has refused to join the EU, so
far, because in Norway's case it also makes sense not to join the
union.

If I had been running the UN, when Yugoslovia began breaking apart, I
would have gotten all of the regions of Yugoslavia together and said:

"You have all been forced to stay together for so long, there are
bound to be ethnic tensions simmering, because we know they were there
before communism.  We also know that the IMF is about to come in and
redo your economic plumbing, and the stresses caused by this added to
the ethnic tensions we know are there, might be too much to handle as
a federation.  So let's not bite off more than we can chew.  Let's
split you up along ethnic lines now and let you each get your own
houses in order over the next several years.  Then, as you all get
back on your feet, it will make sense to talk about a federation for
those states that want in."

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701