As interesting as your comments are, they do not belong in this
distribution list.
Thank you,
Jennifer
Jennifer Redding
Andersen Consulting
phone: 413-535-4135
voice mail: 1-800-624-5780 X2384
email: jennifer.redding@ac.com
> ----------
> From: Jamie Rubin[SMTP:rubin_jamie@HOTMAIL.COM]
> Reply To: Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
> NetView
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 11:49 AM
> To: NV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
> Subject: Kosovo (please respond w/ comments)
>
> ***Please feel free to forward***
>
> Subject: Re: Protest against the Bombing
>
> OK, sigh, I guess I'll get into this one, although
> I view it as pretty murky and not an easy call, although
> I think that ultimately this bombing is a mistake and
> could well lead to a really ugly mess. I hope not.
> But let's get some of the history right for starters:
> 1) Kosovo is the traditional heartland of Serbia, site
> of their defeat in 1389 by the Ottomans and also the
> site of the central shrines of the Serbian Orthodox
> Church.
> 2) The Albanians are Muslims (about 70%) and the
> Serbs view them historically as having been flunkies
> for the long-ruling Ottoman Turks who were only driven
> out with Russian assistance in 1878, when an independent
> Serbia was established which included the province of
> Kosovo. Disputes over whether Austria-Hungary or
> Serbia should control Bosnia led to the beginning of
> WW I when Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Archduke
> Ferdinand in Sarajevo on the anniversary of the defeat
> in 1389.
> 3) After WW I (in which Serbia was on the victorious side)
> the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was
> established which renamed itself "Yugoslavia" in 1930, or
> thereabouts, which had nearly the borders of post-WW II
> Yugoslavia (main difference was that Italy had Istria in the
> northwest before the war which is now in Slovenia).
> 4) I note that there had been a "Yugoslav" nationalist
> movement from the time of Napoleon, based on the close
> relations among the South Slav languages ("Yugoslavia"
> means "South Slavia" in Serbo-Croatian) which supposedly
> overcame their disunity in religion (Catholic Slovenes and
> Croats against Orthodox Serbs and Macedonians and
> Bulgarians, who never joined the country, and the Muslim
> Bosniaks (Serbo-Croat speakers). Although Slovenian,
> Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian are officially
> viewed as distinct languages, it is a fact that somebody can
> manage just fine with Bulgarian in Slovenia, and that one can
> walk from Varna, Bulgaria on the Black Sea to the northwest
> corner of Slovenia without ever encountering a linguistic
> discontinuity or divide. These "languages" are artifices of
> governments and higher level entities.
> The mostly Muslim Albanians are the odd folks out, being
> not Slavic and speaking a very distinct language.
> 5) During WW II the Nazis and fascists carved up Yugoslavia,
> with Slovenia being annexed to Germany (along with neighboring
> Austria), a nasty puppet regime being established in Croatia
> under the Ustashe who ran one of the worst concentration camps
> of the war at Jasenovic (the Croat leader used to keep a jar of
> eyeballs of the dead in his office). There was also a puppet regime
> in Serbia, opposed by the monarchist Chetniks and the Communist
> partisans under Tito (who operated out of Bosnia especially),
> but the province of Vojvidina in the north was annexed by Hungary,
> and Kosovo was attached to Albania which was under fascist
> Italian rule. Macedonia and Montenegro were parts of Serbia,
> although they would be full republics of Yugoslavia after the war
> (like Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia, but
> unlike Kosovo or Vojvodina).
> 6) After the war Tito and the League of Communists were in
> control. One of the motives for the decentralized workers'
> management system in Yugoslavia was to deal with the problem
> of separatism and ethnic tensions by devolving a lot of power
> to local rulers and leaders. For better or for worse regional
> inequalities worsened during this period of rule with a 3 to 1
> ratio of income between (richest) Slovenia and (poorest)
> Kosovo becoming a 9 to 1 ratio by the time of the national
> dissolution in 1990-91.
> 7) Kosovo had the status of an autonomous republic within
> the Republic of Serbia within postwar Yugoslavia. It was granted
> a substantial degree of local autonomy by Tito, as was the
> autonomous republic of Vojvodina within Serbia. Kosovo was
> and remains the poorest part of the former Yugoslavia. Today,
> current Yugoslavia contains two republics, Serbia and Montenegro
> (Montenegro was independent before WW I and was the first of
> the Balkan states to achieve independence from the Ottomans
> and Austro-Hungarians). The Republic of Serbia contains two
> autonomous republics, Kosovo and Vojvodina.
> 8) In 1989, the then leader of Serbia was the current Yugoslav
> president, Slobodan Milosevic. He adopted a nationalist stance
> and gave a speech on the 600th anniversary of the Serb defeat
> by the Ottomans. Shortly thereafter he revoked the autonomy of
> both Kosovo and Vojvodina. It is the return to such autonomy
> that is the proclaimed goal of US/NATO and the bombing. For
> better or for worse the local Albanians are no longer interested
> in that and the KLA wants full independence, a more than minor
> problem, although tactically they gained by signing the
> Rambouillet Accords.
> 9) There has been a long demographic shift with ethnic Albanians
> becoming the majority in Kosovo probably in the 1950s. Today
> they are 80-90% of the population. A major complaint against
> them and their autonomous control prior to 1989 was that their
> local government discriminated against ethnic Serbs and
> encouraged the outmigration of Serbs. Milosevic reacted to
> that. Nobody should be under any illusions about the KLA either.
> They are patriarchal and chauvinistic mafiosi.
> 10) Offhand I would say that "autonomy" is a nice goal, but the
> KLA basically does not want it (they signed for it to get the
> current bombing of the Serbs). The US/NATO is in fact bombing
> a sovereign nation that is resisting a separatist movement. This
> is in violation of the UN Charter and OSCE agreements. The
> Russians are right to object.
> 11) OTOH, Milosevic and the Serbs have engaged in all kinds
> of nasty ethnic cleansing. What went on in Bosnia was much
> worse than anything that has happened in Kosovo so far, but
> support in Europe for the bombing clearly reflects the fear that
> the most recent Serb military actions in Kosovo could lead to
> such truly horrific and genocidal stuff. This has definitely gotten
> very ugly. But I do not see the bombing putting the Serbs off.
> Quite the contrary. Milosevic now has the support of even his
> critics in Serbia in the face of this attack.
> 12) Frankly, I'm not sure why the US is doing this. Some on these
> lists have and will charge that this is all generated by US
> capitalists out to undo the quasi-socialist regime in Yugoslavia,
> or that this is part of a power play against the Russians, traditional
> defenders of Serbia, or that this is a German plot (Germany having
> traditionally supported Croatia against Serbia). Maybe.
> However, I think a lot of it is personal. Bill Clinton (and
> Madeleine Albright, a major player here) has simply gotten fed
> up with being blown off by Milosevic who has violated a cease
> fire agreement he made last fall. It is that violation and the vigor
> of the latest Serb actions that has brought about the support for
> the bombing of governments that might not be expected to
> support it. Notable in this regard is supposedly socialist and
> also traditionally pro-Serbian France, and also very pro-Serb
> Greece, and nearby (and nervous about attacks and refugees)
> Italy, also with a more or less semi-socialist government and
> recently angry with the US over the downed gondola incident.
> Greece is not actively supporting the bombing, but has not
> opposed it within NATO. Non-NATO member Austria has
> blocked all overflights in support of the bombing. But, leftist
> opinion in some of the countries, the newspaper "Liberation"
> in France, and the Reformed Communists in Italy in particular
> have been critical. Even in UK many are concerned that there
> is no exit strategy from this policy and that Clinton and the
> rest of them do not really know what they are doing.
> It is clear that the US clearly feels it can get away with this.
> But where this will all end is very unclear.
> Barkley Rosser
>
> Note: Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo/Albania --- all in the space of
> 6
> months. Anti--___?____ & Unchecked/unexplained.
>
> /////////////////////////
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
|