The Path to Peace

     An editorial by Jimmy Carter, "The Path to Peace" (NYT 5/27) is deemed outstanding by Hoover´s Dan Wilhelmi, who asks for my assessment. Jimmy Carter is a very intelligent, very decent man, and his Carter Center is devoted to the study of war, revolution and peace (which was the focus of the Hoover Institution as President Hoover envisioned it). The article is full of valid criticism of Clinton's Balkan policy, but Carter's good intentions did not produce a good foreign policy- There is a key weakness in his editorial. He says the West should have tried patient negotiation, but that is what the West had been doing in vain for months.
     U.S.foreign policy, like all its policies, is a partisan affair, and one can usually perceive the partisan motivation behind all recommendations, but here is a former Democratic President condemning the present Democratic President, reflecting the total confusion in both parties over the Balkan issue. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush is vague on the subject. Unlike his father, he has no experience in international affairs and shows little interest. However, "Bushspeak is precisely imprecise" (AP 5/28) suggests that this deliberately hides uncertainty as to what to do.
     The American attitude is a curious mixture of the Vietnam syndrome and a growing lack of public interest. In the rest of the world the attitude is mixed. Russia and China dislike NATO's growing power, and are pretty indifferent to the inhumanity of Milosevich. They would have used the U.N. to block any effective action against him, thus invalidating Carter's criticism that decisions should be made by the U.N.
     In much of the world the feeling is that U.S. almost total commitment to Israel in defiance of the U.N. parallels the leading role of Jews in our foreign policy. Two are Jewish immigrants. Henry Kissinger, with Years of Renewal, completes his three-volume defense against his critics. Two new biographies of Madeleine Albright, one by Michael Dobbs, the other by Ann Blackman, reject the story that she and the U.S. administration were unaware of her Jewish origin. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen enjoys great respect among those who know him, but most people just know his name. How this all plays out in the Balkans is a complicated story, but it increases suspicion, especially in Muslim countries.
     The Balkans are to Europe geopolitically what Central America is to the United States, an area of immediate concern, and European leaders are finally aware of their joint responsibilities. They are an unusually intelligent group, and they formulate and support the present NATO policies. This is markedly and strikingly true even of the France of President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin.
     I feel reluctantly compelled to trust their judgment more than that of ex-President Carter.

Ronald Hilton - 05/29/99

More on The Path to Peace

     Tom Moore disagrees with me on the subject of Jimmy Carter's opinion piece. He writes:
     I beg to differ. The West provided Serbia with an ultimatum which prescribed that all of Serbia, not just Kosovo was to be occupied by NATO. In no sense have we at any time negotiated with Milosevic. At Rambouillet in an appendix which has never been made public by NATO but is available on the web, we presented the Serbs with the following ultimatium:
     On the last day, 22 March, the Serbs were presented with "Appendix B", quoted in the New Statesman on 17 May. This demands Nato's right of "unrestricted passage and unimpeded access through the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including associated air space and territorial waters", along with immunity from "all legal process", including the criminal law, and control over "all telecommunications services, including broadcast services".
     This was not a political proposal, but an impossible ultimatum. It meant the effective occupation of all of Yugoslavia. The German newspaper Berliner Zeitung described it as "a surrender treaty following a lost war". Two days later, the bombing began.
     Secretary Albright has objected to the term, negotiation, to describe what we are currently telling Milosevic is necessary to stop the bombing. Her description is that of an ultimatium still.
     I might say that the Germans and French, not to speak of the Italians and Greeks who are close at hand have real reservations but feel that as loyal NATO members they must go along with what the major NATO country says. This is our show run out of Washington by Clinton and Madam Albright.
     My comment: Perhaps, but what do we do now? Just pull out? Tom Moore´s is only one of the comments I have received. Most people, like Tim Brown, feel we have got hold of a tar baby.
    
     More on the Path to Peace
    
     Where do we go from here? Tom Moore writes:
     Let me first say that I agree with everything Bill Ratliff wrote. As far as what we do now, we must make the best of a very bad situation. My recommendation is that we build on the agreement by Serbia on the group of eight. We need not have NATO at the core of any international peace keeping group. This is to denigrate any other military. A UN military group lead by say the Irish or the Swedes with troops from some Muslim countries and with the power to use their weapons to defend any returning Kosovars might work. Probably most refugees will not return, but they probably wouldn't voluntarily anyway. My guess is that if we "won" and got all our demands we would have to force many of the refugees back. After all their homes have been destroyed, their cattle killed, and their livelihoods ruined. By letting the UN do it we could avoid the problem that Bill Ratliff wrote about that NATO forces get caught between the KLA and the Yugoslav military.
     An agreement on the compensation of the peace keeping force is the major stumbling block. Once that is resolved the issue of timing and the number of Serb forces allowed to remain in Kosovo should be readily negotiated.
     My comment: In general, I agree, but I do not think we should undermine the International War Crimes Tribunal, which is a U.N. body. My concern is a general, long range one. How do we prevent a person like Milosevich (or Hitler, or Mussolini) from obtaining power (sometimes by "democratic" means) and then doing their thing? To balance things, I must say, on reading the comments received, some say "These people just hate Chinton."

Ronald Hilton - 06/01/99