NATO troops entered Serbian territory on March 29 -- with the full cooperation
of the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic. Serb and NATO forces jointly
searched inside the border zone, allegedly for evidence of Serbian or Albanian
military activity.
Serbian collaboration made the European military alliance's target clear:
the Albanian guerilla movement which has sprung up in Albanian majority
areas inside Serbia but near the Kosova border. On March 17, United States
troops raided five Albanian bases, confiscating 200 uniforms, 22 crates
of ammunition and other military equipment belonging to the Liberation
Army of Presevo, Bujanovac and Medjedja (UCPBM).
NATO's war had aimed to prevent the “nightmare scenario” of Kosovar
independence leading to struggles by Albanian minorities in Macedonia,
Montenegro and southern Serbia, destabilising NATO's “southern flank”.
NATO's actions are a warning to former factions of the disbanded Kosova
Liberation Army (KLA) not to attempt to put this into practice.
Belgrade's repression has fomented the UCPBM insurgency. During the
Kosova war, 20,000 Albanians were expelled from the region and many houses
destroyed; another 6000 have fled Serb army repression since June.
Clashes
NATO's attempt to balance the irreconcilable aims of Belgrade and the Kosovar
struggle is proving enough of a nightmare without the problem going beyond
Kosova.
When Serb forces were forced out of Kosova, France's NATO troops formed
an alliance with Serbian paramilitaries to partition the northern city
of Mitrovica. By keeping hold of northern Mitrovica, Serbian control was
guaranteed over the whole of northern Kosova to the Serbian border -- where
the bulk of Kosova's mineral wealth, along with the $5 billion Trepca mining
and metallurgy complex, is situated.
Media reports call northern Mitrovica the “Serb zone”, but 80% of the
population was Albanian before the war. Tens of thousands of Albanians
have been prevented from returning to northern Kosova.
Frequent French-Albanian clashes since June have resulted from French
forces' attempts to prevent Albanians from crossing blockaded bridges to
return to their homes.
Serbian paramilitaries -- supplemented by continual reinforcements from
over the border -- moved to strengthen their position in February. In response
to an attack on a Serb bus which left two dead, they brutally expelled
another 1000 Albanians who had been precariously holding on in the north;
their operations left 10 dead and 34 injured. French forces did nothing
to protect the Albanians.
One group of Albanians, in an enclave in the north called “Little Bosnia”,
resisted by shooting at Serbs burning their houses. French troops fired
back at the Albanians, injuring four and killing one. Two French soldiers
were also wounded. Human rights monitors and journalists on site insist
the dead Albanian was unarmed.
To avoid complete humiliation, NATO has attempted to confiscate weapons
from both sides. In a land where everyone owns guns, and both sides fear
each other, this was both futile and arrogant -- there are no local armies,
so instead NATO searches under people's beds.
French forces have concentrated on disarming the Albanians, particularly
in encircled, vulnerable “Little Bosnia”. Meanwhile, NATO sent US troops
into the Serb sector -- a move either breathtakingly insensitive or designed
to fail. US troops withdrew immediately under a barrage of stones.
The three-way contest also continues in eastern Kosova in the Russian
sub-zone of the US zone. In regions across the border from south-east Serbia,
where the UCPBM has asserted itself, Serbian forces have carved out enclaves
with the aid of Russian troops, in some areas preventing Albanians returning
or driving them out.
While cracking down on UCPBM guerillas, US forces are also being confronted
in some Serbian enclaves. On April 8, US forces suspended escorts of Serb
residents in Sevce, after 11 US troops were injured by stone-throwing Serbs
after arresting a man.
Chaos
A year after NATO launched its war, a picture of chaos emerges. With overwhelming
military superiority, it was easy for NATO to bomb Serb civilians and infrastructure
to gain a political victory, Milosevic's capitulation.
It has proved more difficult to control the situation on the ground.
Much of the talk of NATO fearing a “Vietnam” if it sent in troops was misdirected.
In Vietnam, the US fought the local liberation movement. In Kosova, the
Serbian army fought the local liberation movement. NATO has now taken over
from them in preventing Kosovar self-determination.
By September NATO had dismantled and disarmed the KLA. Protestations
by Belgrade and its apologists that this has not been thorough overlook
the fact that NATO has achieved more than Belgrade did -- Milosevic's brutal
counterinsurgency tactics had caused the KLA to bloom as the Albanians'
only defence.
Precisely because the imperialist powers fear a “Vietnam”, they are
reluctant to launch an all-out war against remnants of a guerilla movement
solidly based among the Kosovar population, the prescription of Belgrade's
supporters.
Meanwhile, the destruction wrought by NATO and Belgrade has left a legacy
of chaos which the UN administration is incapable of dealing with. Revenge
attacks by traumatised Albanians returning to destroyed homes and mass
graves have driven half the local Serb population from Kosova. Those remaining
have gathered in enclaves which serve Belgrade's aim of partitioning off
the valuable areas.
These revenge attacks have been overwhelmingly spontaneous actions.
For example, the presence of thousands of refugees in the east Kosova town
of Gniljane has led to intensified attacks on Serbs there. This cycle then
continues as expelled Serbs from Gniljane intensify the expulsion of Albanians
from southern Serbia.
The KLA was confined to barracks by NATO even before being dissolved;
blaming it for not preventing these attacks is hardly reasonable. Former
KLA leaders like Hashim Thaci have vigorously condemned these attacks but
have pointed out that the UN and NATO have allowed them no chance to prevent
them.
The foreign colonial administration has no hope of controlling the situation
-- only allowing the Kosovars to rule themselves, with their own state
structures, could bring order into the chaos.
But for the UN and NATO, that sounds like a step towards Kosovar independence,
so attempts by Albanians to set up state structures are either unrecognised
or disbanded under the banner of “stopping the KLA from taking power”.
This vacuum of state authority, combined with the catastrophic legacy,
has caused a generalised state of crime and violence.
The great majority of victims are now Albanians. The wave of revenge
attacks against minorities has subsided. Crime syndicates operate throughout
the region, often with bases in neighbouring Albania, still suffering from
the collapse of its own state structures following the failed 1997 revolution.
Protecting Serbs?
In refusing to empower the Kosovars and continuing to block Kosovar independence,
the NATO regime claims to be protecting the Serb minority from an Albanian
regime. Yet this policy has neither protected Serbs from Albanian revenge
nor protected Albanians in regions controlled by Serbian forces.
The argument is self-defeating. Kosovars fought for independence for
years; following last year's genocide, it is impossible for them to imagine
living in “Yugoslavia” again.
Yet NATO leaders continue to insist that, while having “substantial
self-rule” (which has so far been blocked), Kosova must remain in Yugoslavia;
independence has been totally ruled out. This, and the local Serb leadership's
arrogant rejection of Kosovar self-rule, entrenches the ethnic radicalisation
of Kosovars.
A transitional period may be necessary -- full and immediate rule by
the Kosovars may have been worse for minorities. However, the NATO regime
is not a transition to Kosovar self-determination, but a block to it.
An unambiguous NATO declaration that Kosova will never be returned to
Yugoslavia and that the Kosovars have the right to self-determination would
help soothe the Kosovars' fears and blunt ethnic radicalisation. Their
fears are real: NATO quite deliberately did not target the Serbian army
last year -- a grand total of 13 tanks were destroyed.
The UN should let the Albanians set up their own state structures in
preparation for independence; during the transition, reconstruction and
confidence-building measures could help smooth inter-ethnic hatred and
hence create the basis for minority rights for Serbs to be real.
Furthermore, if the Kosovar Albanian leadership were ceded their legitimate
right to rule, they could then be legitimately judged on whether or not
they were preventing anti-minority violence.
Partition
However, this is not the goal of the imperialist rulers of Kosova. NATO's
declared goal of establishing a “multi-ethnic Kosova” is nothing but doublespeak
for Kosova remaining in Yugoslavia.
By partitioning the north, France is acting as the advance guard of
Western strategy, but others are following. On April 5, Karl Lamers, foreign
policy spokesperson of the German opposition Christian Democratic Union,
advocated the partition of Kosova as part of Germany's own exit strategy.
Partition offers a solution by keeping the two sides apart so that imperialist
soldiers don't suffer casualties; it also offers the basis for an agreement
with Russia, by allowing its Belgrade ally to strengthen control over the
mineral-rich north. And this loss of its most valuable assets may even
prevent the Albanian part of Kosova attaining independence, forcing it
to remain in “Yugoslavia”.
However, the US launched the war to cement its leadership over NATO
and NATO's continued dominance in Europe, using “humanitarian” goals to
justify the brutal operation. To leave a new partition too quickly may
be politically difficult to explain, particularly given this is election
year for Clinton's team.
This dilemma may be relieved after the “Eurocorps” takes control of
Kosova operations on April 18. The “Eurocorps” is a Europe-based military
brigade, which France and Germany consider the nucleus of a future European
force independent of NATO. The US has long opposed this development.
However if, after NATO has carried out its “noble humanitarian mission”,
the Eurocorps steps in and presides over a partition, this may serve as
both a US exit strategy and a propaganda point against its European rivals.
Such is the makings of great powers' foreign policy.
BY MICHAEL KARADJIS
