Albright has Some Explaining to Do
By James M. Klurfeld
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is trumpeting the success of the war in Kosovo and talking about her vision for peace in the Balkans. But now that the bombing has stopped and the peacemaking begun, there are questions she, as the architect of the Kosovo policy, ought to answer.
Why did not the administration anticipate that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic would respond to the initial bombing with massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?
The purpose of the bombing was to prevent ethnic cleansing. But clearly the administration was not ready for Milosevic's response. Troops should have been on the ground to prevent such an action. Instead, Milosevic was able to act with impunity and the prime objective of the mission was lost within the first few days. Why?
Everything that followed - the 78 days of bombing - was about making up for the initial blunder, possible the worst foreign policy mistake since the Bay of Pigs. Now that the war has ended, the American people, let alone the Kosvars, who were the victims of the blunder, deserve an explanation.
Is there now an Albright doctrine for the use of U.S. force, where military intervention is to prevent gross violations of human rights?
There are terrible things happening around in other parts of the globe. There have been many more deaths, for instance, in East Timor. Or Nogorno-Kharabakh. Or in parts of Africa. Should the United States, forcibly step between India and Pakistan over Kashmir? Albright and U.S. President Clinton have said that because we cannot intervene everywhere not mean we should not intervene anywhere. But that does not go nearly far enough. What are the criteria for determining when U.S. military force should be used? Or is Kosovo a sui generis situation that will not and should not be repeated?
What precedent have we established by ignoring the United Nations to fight this war?
By almost any measure, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's action was illegal under international law. Kosovo is a recognized part of a sovereign nation, Serbia. Even if Serbia's violation human rights was so gross as to justify an attack, under international law it had to be approved, by the U.N. Security Council. Albright, however, was convinced either Russia or China would veto such, an action. So the United Nations was bypassed. But does not that say the United Nations will be used only when it is willing to do your bidding? What is the lesson for the future? What if Russia, for instance, believes ethnic Russians are being grossly mistreated in the Ukraine? Could it bypass the United Nations and invade Ukraine along with other member states of, the Commonwealth of Independent States and cite the Kosovo precedent?
How can the allies rebuild the Kosovar economy without rebuilding the Serbian economy?
Albright has made it clear that the United States, at least, does not want any economic aid going to Serbia so long as Milosevic is still in control of the country. But the problem is that Kosovo is so small - the size of Connecticut - and so much a part of Serbia that it is going to be impossible to rebuild its economy while Serbia is still in ruins and being treated as a pariah nation. Albright does not offer a solution other than the removal of Milosevic. But the hope that someday the people of the Balkans can live peacefully with each other is based on a vision of prosperity. The answer, of course, is that Slobo must go. But what if he does not?
Given the history of hate between ethnic Albanians and Serbs - animosity that goes back 600 years - would not it be better to separate the populations?
This is even more true now after Serbia's brutal attempt at ethnic cleansing and the understandable and inevitable desire for revenge on the part of the returning ethnic Albanians. The attempts at revenge have already become a major problem. But separating populations is not part of the U.S. ideal. It does not square with the vision articulated by Albright and Clinton. Both have said on numerous occasions that the world cannot just throw up its hands and say that the people of the Balkans will always be at each other's throats because that is the way they are.
But it is also essential to understand the history of the region and why its experience is so different from ours. Every empire since the Roman has attempted to tame the ethnic fires in that part of the world and none has succeeded for long. Will we really be the first?
Return to
Page