March 27, 1999

Some Possible Reasons for Bombardment

    In this article I intend to talk mostly about speculations, I'll try to substantiate them with facts but they will still stay speculations. The reasons for the assasult have been offered by Western officials many times, but I'll still try to expose the not-so-obvious ones, from my point of view.

    It's said that the main reason for attacks is to stop the fights in Kosovo and to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - refugees, killing of civilians... That would be a high and worthy cause (don't get me wrong, I'm deeply against any killing and I agree that it has to be stopped, I only can't agree with the methods), but I do not see that NATO acts in that direction. In fact, I think that military action completely misses it's declared political goals, and I'll try to explain why.

    Firstly, it's clear (as it was for a long time now) that Milosevic's absolutism and chauvinism is one of the main reasons for conflicts we had with former Yugoslavian republics. The situation with Albanians from Kosovo is somewhat different, since there are very old conflicts - dating a long time before he got on the scene. Anyway, I strongly believe that Milosevic's resignation would be both very beneficial and necessary for my country's recovery, and good for the whole region. And I believe that US and EC officials also see it this way, at least that's what they say.

    Secondly, after cases such as Cuba, Iraq and Libya, it is obvious that economic sanctions and war campaigns do not result in real changes - all the leaders stayed in their positions (and got even stronger), regimes stayed the same and common people paid all the debts. You probably know that the embargo imposed on us covered even medicals, but you might not know that we were cut-off from the Internet 'till 1996. Not to mention that this threat always remained...

    Thirdly, in this particular situation, no one succesfully explained how can any kind of bombing stop ground and (especially) intra-city combat. I think that peaceful Albanians are in the worst situation now - they are threatened by the KLA that does not let neutral men stay aside and they refuse to leave their positions (KLA held some parts of Kosovo for almost a year) and also because they have to deal with a very nervous Yugoslav Army and after all this the bombs are killing them too. The "cherry on the cake" is a statement by gen. Clark who said that "... escalation of violence was completely predictable."(Noam Chomsky -"The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric")

    So, the question is very simple - if USA and EC officials really want to bring the Balkan crisis to conclusion, why are they using methods that are evidently unfruitful, if not totally wrong? Why, especially when there is an obvious and less painful method - to summon Milosevic and KLA-leaders to Hague, as they deserve? Is the bombing cheaper, simpler, more appropriate, what???

. . .

    Let's take a look from the other, pesimistic side - with Milosevic in saddle, the situation in the region is not likely to get better, at least not soon. On the other hand, bombing will probably destroy a great deal of Yugoslav industry, some of the bigger factories are burned to the ground already. Obviously, it will make recovery of my country very difficult and things here will not settle for a long time. The question is: What is, really, the attitude of The West here - do they want it to happen this way or they simply can't see any way to avoid it?

    This answer is not simple and it's far beyond my reach. I'll just try to indicate a few controversial points.

    First, the West didn't try to step on Milosevic personally - his bank accounts, which are huge, are still open, there were no serious efforts to put him to trial, political support to Yugoslav opposition and non-governmental organisations almost disappeared and financial support dwindled significantly after Autumn 1997 when it looked like Milosevic would give privatisation a green light - here, privatisation means selling companies and factories to foreign corporations.

    Then, during the Cold War, Yugoslavia was one of the biggest weapon exporters to Third World countries, our arms industry was greatly involved in Iraq for example (it's not that I agree with weapon making, I'm just trying to focus on things that can be of interest to a military mind - a kind that's in charge here). Our T-84 tank is, even western analysts agree, far better than its competition in desert terrain and thus it was likely to sell very well on "the market". Do I have to say which factories were bombed first? Dirty way to eliminate competition...?

    Another great benefit for the West (for english-speaking countries above all, I guess) is the exodus of younger and/or highly educated people from here - doctors, engineers, scientists... whole generations from technical faculties are leaving the country. Two years ago I heard of terrible statistics - that approximately 350.000 experts were gone, and until now - who knows? I read an estimate that it takes about 100.000$ to "develop" a graduated student - just think about budget savings for countries that receive such refugees...

    Then, a straight benefit for NATO is an opportunity to try out all of its new weapons - B2 is now applied for the first time, and it's maybe the first termination of an invisible (heh, invisible ;) ) F-117a. First of all, this applies to the USA, because other participants sent older aircraft, with capabilities already known.

. . .

    Now I gave you some specific aspects of the situation in Yugoslavia and possible benefits for the West (USA above all). I hope they are worth a thought or two. I mean, there is a logic (a specific kind) in imposing one's policy to the rest of the world but let's face it, let's call it properly, since hiding behind non-stop rhetorics on humanitarian disaster is pathetic.

Emil
Belgrade