CKNW Editorial
for June 24, 1999

One of the things all of us try to learn is this – before I act, what are going to be the consequences. Even if the result is what I hope, will there still be any problems? If so, how can they be best handled? If it turns out that my hoped for result is not all that great, how can I extricate myself?

This approach applies to countries as well as people. And it applies to Nato in their actions in Yugoslavia and Kosovo.

I believe strongly that Nato was wrong to bomb Serbia and Kosovo in the first place and you will recall that over and over I asked what their exit strategy was. More importantly, people with some influence in world affairs were asking the same question. In other words, the question is not just what will happen if I lose but also what will happen if I win?

Nato and President Clinton are crowing that they’ve won. Well, then, what now?

The situation is that the people being ethnically cleansed have changed from Kosovars to Serbs. Kosovo, part of Yugoslavia, now has no proper government and indeed no structure. Is it still a province of Yugoslavia? If so, presumably Belgrade will be able to exercise its authority. But we all know that Belgrade cannot exercise any authority because their troops have all been withdrawn. So who will run the place? The UN? The Kosovo Liberation Army?

Well, then, does this mean Kosovo is a new country all of its own? If it is, that’s because Nato has unilaterally made it to be so. Does this mean that the international community condones the practice of other nations using force to help one part of a country separate from another? Does Canada, with separatist problems of its own, believe in that notion?

Are Nato, or UN troops prepared to stay forever? If not, what are the circumstances under which it will withdraw? When there is no more claim on Kosovo by Yugoslavia? That, if it ever happens, could be decades away. It’s hard to imagine the circumstances under which Serbia recognizes Kosovo independence and even if it does, God know how long it will take for the military threat to go away. The example of the state of Israel is instructive. 50 years after the war for her independence the very question of her existence is very much in issue. Are we to suppose that Kosovo will settle down any quicker?

What is the position of the Kosovo Liberation Army? Is Nato or the UN going to disarm it even though it has said it will not be disarmed? And how long will it be before Nato troops are not only at risk from Serbs with guns but from Kosovars as well?

If we assume that Serbia has in fact lost its hold on Kosovo, what does this mean to all Albanians in the area? Doesn’t the notion of a Greater Albania become irresistible? Won’t the pressure from both Albania and Albanians in Macedonia become so great as to be inevitable? How long can Nato troops prevent this from happening?

And if a greater Albania does come into being, how does Nato or the UN prevent war from breaking out, probably involving Serbia in the North, Greece in the South with Turkey thrown in for good measure?

Unquestionably, Russia is in this picture and politicians there are talking not of the cold war, but the cold peace. How does the UN or Nato plan to keep Russia out of the Balkans in a military sense? Russia may not be a super power any more but it’s a great power with a huge nuclear capability. What about Russia, then?

The questions I ask are not difficult to come up with – many others in higher places have been asking them and continue to ask them. And there are lots more. As I’ve observed before, the UN is now, thanks to Nato, like Bre’er Rabbit and the tar baby – it’s stuck and there’s no help in sight.

But there’s a special question for Canada. How much is Canada prepared to pay to rehabilitate Serbia after the hell was bombed out of her? Is it the plan that no money will be paid to fix up Serbia until she signs some paper agreeing to forgo her rights in Kosovo which is lawfully part of Yugoslavia? How would that sort of approach play out in the long run? Serbs are human beings too – you cannot in the name of good blast out a country’s infrastructure and simply let the people rot and starve.

This is a breast-beating time for Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Jean Chretien but breast beating always has a very short lifespan. They did it their way, all right, but the tough question remains – what now?