 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 1 - 7 April 1999 Issue No. 423 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 1 - 7 April 1999 Issue No. 423
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Interview Profile Features Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters A long and muddy battle
By Salama Ahmed Salama
There is no longer any doubt that the war in the Balkans has expanded, and could well extend beyond the time-frame envisaged by the NATO allies. The staunch Serb resistance means that air strikes by US Stealth planes or Cruise missiles cannot be just one more military parade, or an exercise in the use of new weapons technology. The foolishness of Iraq's rulers have turned that country into a punching bag; Yugoslavia, in contrast, will not make NATO's task an easy one by any means. Quite apart from issues of morality or justice, and regardless of whether the Serbs deserve what is happening to them (although it is the first time that they have paid for their brutality, and the massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo), what is going on here is not a punitive military campaign led by NATO for moral or humanitarian motives, as the British defence secretary claims. The Serbs are being punished politically. The crisis reflects the power struggle for control of the Balkans, a strategic region in the very centre of Europe.
The genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina did not seem to constitute a sufficient cause to prompt any moral or humanitarian response from the British or their allies. Not until the regime in Yugoslavia proved to be a thorn in the side of Europe, which, given a chance, could set the whole of central Europe ablaze, did NATO react. Yugoslavia is also Russia's back door, and can restrict NATO's dreams to expand its influence and seal its hegemony over both Eastern and Western Europe.
Had moral or humanitarian conditions been pricking Europe's conscience, we would have seen some action to address various crises before they exploded. Europe would have moved to save the Kurds, deprived of their human rights in Turkey, or to halt the massacres of Hutus and Tutsis in central Africa. In all crisis situations, however, Europe has forgotten its moral and historical commitments -- to its former colonies, at least. The British defence secretary's claims are therefore absolutely groundless. In fact, specific nations are paying for Europe's peace and affluence.
Even after the NATO campaign began, the bombing of military facilities and positions in Yugoslavia was strictly limited. The Albanian Muslims in Kosovo remained hostage to the Serb forces. As NATO strikes against Serb defences and positions intensified, Serb brutality escalated. NATO's sophisticated death machine was unable to save the lives or property of tens of thousands of Albanians, who were chased by Serb death squads out of their villages. The Serbs are banking on the fact that European leaders will not risk the death of a single NATO soldier. Kosovo which is entirely in Serb hands, can never be liberated unless NATO decides to engage in a ground battle. The US, which took the initiative to declare a change in military tactic as soon as one of its Stealth planes was shot down, was only concerned with affirming that the pilot had been rescued. NATO must now decide: will it bring in ground forces, widely seen as the only means of rescuing thousands of Albanians from genocide? Only when ground troops are involved will the real war begin. The rulers in Belgrade are hybrid creatures, generated by Nazism, Communism and the belief in some mythical racial purity. The battle will not be quick or easy, unless US endeavours to oust Milosevic and his gang are successful. Saddam Hussein is a case in point.
