satisfied with the peace terms set by the Rambuillet mediators, since they did not comply
with all demands made by both delegation. However, the closing stages of the Rambuillet
negotiations brought about the acceptance of the given peace terms by the Albanian
delegation and refusal of the same peace terms by the Serbian delegation. The refusal
furthermore led to the utilization of the bombings, which were purposely used as a
pressure on the Serbian side, until they accepted the agreement.
Apart from the two different sides in the conflict, NATO intervention itself caused
the separation of the pro and contra promoters and an open political debate. There were
two major sides advocating and opposing the military intervention. One was the survival
of media in the country of Yugoslavia that is described by Peter Goff in his book Kosovo
News and Propaganda as “...one of the worst pseudo-democratic countries in the world
to work in as a free-minded journalist” (29). This statement includes the fact that TV
channels always informed from the perspective of the Government of Serbia and thus
denied people’s freedom of speech. The Yugoslav media accused NATO for violating the
country’s sovereignty and called it a criminal organization.
The other major side was the alliance of the NATO countries led by the U.S.
media, a media that justified NATO’s attack by referring to it as a purely “humanitarian
intervention.” However, as Bruce Franklin presents the success of the American media to
justify its deeds by stating that: “In this magnificent triumph of techno war, America’s
images of its wars had seemingly reached perfection.” (449). American media, according
to Bruce Franklin is facing a constant advance towards betterment in providing war
information. Franklin’s example of the military intervention in the Gulf War against Iraq in
August 1990 and the use of technology of warfare in it can be applied also in the latest
case of intervention in Kosova, where NATO applied American technology in informing.
There are many articles and books opposing and justifying NATO military
intervention, but I have compared two articles from the opposing sides that have a
different argument about this matter. The former NATO Secretary General Dr. Javier
Solana wrote one of the articles, which appeared on NATO’s online library called Why
the Allies Stand Firm in the Defense of Values. The other article, Some Ethical
Aspects of NATO’s Intervention In Kosovo is written by Jan Oberg, the director of the
TFF (Transitional Foundation for Peace and Future Research) as well as the head of its
Conflict-Mitigation team to ex-Yugoslavia and Georgia and the article is posted on the
official web site of Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Solana starts his article, published on 16th of April 1999, by presenting how the
events in Kosovo changed NATO’s focus and made it “decide whether the notion of
common values is only rhetorical flourish or whether it carries real meaning” (1). He
names three major reasons why NATO had to go ahead with the strikes, starting with
“First and foremost, we acted to stop the humanitarian tragedy”(1). Solana presents the
possibility that if “NATO decided to just look the other way”(1), that would mean
tolerating “the barbaric ethnic cleansing” in the middle of Europe. Giving Bosnia as an
example of NATO’s late intervention, he states, “We would not repeat that mistake”(1).
Secondly, Solana argues, “all other means – political and economic have been
exhausted before reverted to military action”(1). He continues to explain that in peace
negotiations in Rambouillet (France), Slobodan Milosevic proved that he was not
interested in political solution, and instead “tried to create a new ethnic reality on the
ground”(2). The third reason for the intervention was that “if Belgrade’s policy of
deliberate displacement of the Kosovo-Albanians were not energetically opposed, even
more instability and blood shed would have been the result”(2). The article ends with a
message to the Yugoslav people that NATO is at war with the Yugoslav government not
with their people, and expresses the concern for “peace and long-term stability”(3).
Oberg wrote his article on July 15, 1999, after the KFOR troupes had entered
Kosova. First of all Oberg suggests that Western countries have not shown their concern
to resolve the conflict, stating that “when it comes to risking Western lives for them, they
crumble.” He contradicts Solana’s declaration that NATO was being in war with
Yugoslav government and not its people, by giving statistics that display a bigger damage
caused on the civilian than on military targets. In another point of disagreement with the
intervention, Oberg presents the fact that NATO did not intervene in other parts of the
world with “much more serious human rights violations”(2). Oberg’s article strongly
focuses on the NATO support to KLA by arming them, while not giving any political
support to moderate Albanian leader Rugova. He also writes about the US media
contradicting itself with regard to KLA:
The West supports ‘terrorists’. The US and the
West have no qualms by being allied with what the
US envoy, Robert Gelbard, in early 1998 called a
terrorist organization, namely the KLA or UCK
(Oberg 3).
Oberg implies that NATO spent a lot of money on the military intervention and
now when it comes to “much cheaper early violence-preventive diplomacy,
peaceful humanitarian intervention and postwar civilian peacekeeping consistently
lack resources”(2). But on the other hand, Solana declared that the Allied
diplomacy gave Yugoslav government the final chance for a political solution in
Rambouillet peace talks.
Following NATO air strikes, a flood of Kosovar Albanian refugees began
to pour into neighboring countries, Albania and Macedonia. According to
Solana’s article, NATO expressed its concern for the refugees by supporting UN
High Commissioner for Refugees “by providing and transporting food and
supplies”(3). He continues, “The Alliance is also providing medical support and is
helping to set up refugee centers in the neighboring countries”(3). Oberg gives a
different view to NATO’s humanitarian support by stating that “Humanitarian
concern is hardly credible” (2).
“NATO’s action released a humanitarian catastrophe. The
international ‘community’ let Macedonia and Albania carry
98% of the burden, and relieved itself of the frightening
perspective of having the refugees flood EU Europe. The US –
generously – suggested that it would take 20.000 and store
them on its military base…in Cuba!” (Oberg 2)
However, Solana was hoping that President Milosevic would quickly accept the demands
of the international community that included “the return of all refugees;”(2)
Solana admits the consequences and the risk that could occur by the start of the
bombing campaign in Yugoslavia stating:
The humanitarian tragedy was not likely to be
stopped within a few days. The military risks to our
soldiers would be significant. Civilian casualties might
occur. Our important relationship with Russia was likely
to suffer. And last but not least, NATO would be charged
by some with taking international law into its own
hands.(1)
At the near end of the article Oberg introduces the idea of “Telling the truth”(4), by
a fair argument commenting on both sides of the conflict:
It is often said that the West cannot rely on
Milosevic/the Serbs/ Belgrade regime. True- but
remember! The West supports democracy but openly
and tactically supported authoritarian regimes in Zagreb,
Sarajevo and Albania (including the KLA leadership)(4).
From the presentation of both articles which justify and accuse NATO for
its intervention in Kosova, it is obvious the fact that such a political debate
will continue to be argued about. The topic will remain controversial
whenever a new conflict emerges and whenever NATO intervention is
about to occur. Even though there is a time difference between the
articles; Solana’s article was published during the air strikes, while
Oberg’s article was published right after the end of the bombing, they
both address the problem from the broader perspective. Therefore, the
arguments from these two articles will also be valid to be contrasted now,
tomorrow, or in the long-term future.
1
