 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 April 1999 Issue No. 426 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 22 - 28 April 1999 Issue No. 426
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
By Salama Ahmed Salama
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Special Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters
With the war in the Balkans entering its fifth week, and despite NATO's success in eliminating most of its strategic targets, it has earned only a propaganda victory. No military or political victory is yet in sight.
Which of the two warring parties has achieved its objectives? To deter Milosevic from forcing more Kosovars into exile, to bring him to accept the terms of peace dictated by the allies and reiterated several times by President Clinton, NATO has escalated its operations against Serbian targets, hitting military barracks, fuel depots, refineries, state television headquarters, bridges... But we must admit that, thus far, the allies have failed to meet their goals, and that Milosevic -- "the butcher", as he is dubbed by Tony Blair -- has succeeded in carrying most of his plans to fruition.
By expelling over two thirds of the population, filling refugee camps in Albania to overflowing, and pushing hundreds of thousands more Albanians to the Macedonian border, knowing full well that the Macedonians support the Serbs, he has emptied Kosovo of its ethnic Albanian population. A small minority of Kosovars have been sent to Europe -- a gesture of sympathy from the countries engaged in bombing Yugoslavia.
Organised ethnic cleansing continues, unabated by NATO's intensive bombing of Pristina: Serb tanks are waiting in abandoned villages in Kosovo, while NATO planes are now responsible for the deaths of at least 80 refugees. Tens of thousands of children, women and old people are being herded onto the front lines by NATO's huge media machine.
No amount of Western press coverage, however, can hide the tragic blunders being committed by the "alliance"; its short-sighted policy lacks wisdom and equilibrium, not to mention insight and objectivity. While many would be happy to see Milosevic and his fascist regime in Belgrade come to an abrupt end, the question remains: At what price? And who will pay it?
NATO countries are in an impasse. While no war can be won without engaging ground troops on the battlefield, Blair and Clinton have both categorically dismissed the option, which the NATO military command and some members of Congress are advocating vehemently. Clinton will not take the risk of sending ground troops into Kosovo on the eve of a presidential election. Instead, he is mobilising aircraft, supplies and missiles, and has asked Congress to approve an additional $5 billion to meet the costs of the war. While there are chances that military operations will expand to Albania, Macedonia, and Bulgaria (the allies have asked for bases from which to launch their attacks), rifts are opening up, mainly on the question of whether or not to include Russia in the search for a peaceful solution and to solicit the good offices of Kofi Annan. Both options, which are endorsed by France, Germany and most countries in Europe, are opposed by Britain and the US.
NATO will certainly not suffer a defeat. Yet if the Serbian dictator holds out for much longer, and the other Slavic countries' opposition to the intensified air operations escalates, the US and its allies may find themselves faced with two options: either bring in ground troops and take all the risks in terms of material loss and bloodshed, or work out a political settlement with Milosevic. In both cases, NATO will not emerge unscathed.
