Dialogue on Support of NATO in Yugoslavia

June 24, 1999

Hi Tom,

It has been difficult at times to read the slanted messages you have continued to send out regarding the situation is Kosovo. When I received your message below I finally had to say something. Why now, as they are pulling the bodies out out of the mass graves, do you still put forward this theoretical nonsense? You seem to ignore the fact that this was not a disagreement between 2 "reasonable" parties. (Or at least your selection of articles seems to indicate so.) One of the consistent themes of your messages was that non-violence is the answer, which in a perfect world is absolutely correct, however, whether NATO bombed or invaded or not, violence was occurring and would continue. The people in control of Serbia are criminals and butchers. Period. 

"Negotiations" went nowhere until these individuals absolutely understood they would not be allowed to do what they wanted and they personally felt threatened, either politically or physically. As unfortunate as this is in the 20th century, this was only achieved by force. In the article you sent most recently, it talks about "Serbs", "Albanians", but who are these people, who are the individuals, what are their motives?

Now when you talk about negotiations with the "Serbs", it means Slobodan Milosevic and his ultra nationalist crew. Does anyone believe that he represents the will of the "Serb" populace, absolutely not. On the other side is the KLA, do these people really represent the Albanians who were victimized, if given a chance would they do the same to the Serbs, would they oppress or intimidate the people with more moderate views than themselves?

When a forum is established where the people of these areas can express their will and when the voices of "reasonable" people is allowed to be heard, then this region will have a chance to heal itself. As long as the expressions are spoken or yelled or written, there is a chance that the different parties will begin to listen to each other and come to an understanding where at least they don't have to kill each other.

But whatever happens now, the killing had to be stopped first.

David.

Hi David,

Thanks for your thoughtful message.

I guess in a sense my messages have been somewhat slanted if only to counterbalance so much that has been showing up in the press - which I have found typical of wartime media - simple and shallow. Still I doubt any one person can adequately portray the issues and horrors of this kind of situation.

From a snapshot perspective, your points are well taken. The Serbs are, have been and probably will continue if given the chance to be, as you put it, butchers. However, if one was to view the history and its sickening trends through today, one can take other snapshots and substitute the name "Serbs" with the names of other ethnic groups.

The question that keeps coming to my mind is whether NATO's actions actually stopped the killing. From what I can gather from my remote vantage point in Tokyo is that the Serbs continued - and perhaps escalated - their barbarisms in defiance of NATO. In other words, as despicable as the mass murders and rapes certainly were, NATO added perhaps another 2,000 deaths of innocents on top of the funeral pyre. No one will ever be able to say how many lives were saved by NATO's intervention but I can only hope it was more than 2,000. From what I have seen so far, I'm not yet convinced. Obviously, I would rather be proven wrong on this grim point.

And, like you, I hope to see peace fully restored. But I fear that peace is still not as firmly in grasp as the NATO public relations organs would have us believe. I'm not sure bombing and supporting one side will bring both parties back to discussions. The hard and evil feelings have probably only been amplified - and amplified over centuries of bigotry and hatred on all sides. I really do not see any good or bad guys. I do see one side during this decade acting overtly barbarous. Being victims and aggressors seem to be an incredibly sordid aspect of all ethnic groups in the Balkans.

Now we are a part of it - and I fear in the end not necessarily in a constructive role - even with all good intentions considered. At least we can hope we may contribute to resolutions there, but many countries have failed over the centuries. We can at least pray we will somehow be different. Before the shooting and before the bombing, there were people courageously on all sides of this conflict, formally and informally, trying to reach out and help neighbors and other communities of other ethnicities. Even during the first of the atrocities, many stood up for humanitarian justice. And while a few never gave up through all of this, many of the opened hands of friendship were withdrawn once this breakdown in society became an international conflict. Even Milosevic's enemies rallied around nationalism when the bombs fell. And with the bombs substantial peace making stopped.

In time we will know more and better if it were the bombs or diplomacy, including that of the Russians, that actually brought the end to the fighting. Obviously the bombs had an important role. But how important?

And the fundamental question that only time will eventually answer is could the final result have been fundamentally different without NATO's intervention? I honestly don't know; it is much too early. I have been and will continue to be alarmed when nations scamper to arms - especially when such action is inadequately thought out.

Was all of this justified? Was it a big blunder? We may have our opinions but I submit neither of us will know for some time. But to sit passively and not take a position is worst of all.

I sincerely appreciate your message since it is great to get a sincere response. I thought your rebuttal was intelligent and it certainly stimulated much thinking on my part. Thank you so much. Should you ever make it to Tokyo, I hope you will let me know since I would like very much to meet you personally.

Tom

Return to Page