TIME Daily's writers, working with TIME magazine's correspondents
in Yugoslavia and around the world, answered your questions
about the complex situation in the Balkans.
If NATO won't commit ground troops, why won't it arm the Kosovo Liberation
Army instead?
How many Serb military personnel and civilians have been killed in the
current conflict with NATO?
What was the ethnic background of Josip Broz Tito, who ruled Yugoslavia for
four decades after World War II? Did he show favoritism to any of
Yugoslavia's ethnic groups during his reign?
Why is the U.S. contributing the bulk of the aircraft used in the Kosovo
campaign when this is supposed to be a combined NATO operation?
We often hear in the media that Greece, Turkey and other countries in
the
region could get dragged into the Kosovo conflict if the situation
deteriorates. Can you explain this?
How much does the bombing cost?
Why is the U.S. acting in Kosovo when it didn't intervene in other cases of
ethnic bloodshed such as the massacres in Rwanda?
How can I find out about giving assistance to the refugees?
Why are the Russians so opposed to the NATO air strikes? They have sent
warships to the region; is there really a chance they will attack American
forces in the area?
What, at this point, is the U.S. interest in bombing Kosovo?
What is the Kosovo Liberation Army, and have they also committed
atrocities?
Is the conflict between Albanians and Serbs a religious war?
Has the U.S. declared war on Yugoslavia?
Does Yugoslavia possess nuclear weapons?
If the Serbs claim that Kosovo is part of their heartland, how come 90
percent of the population is Albanian?
Why is this a NATO and not a U.N. operation?
What are the NATO countries?
Is it safe to travel to Europe now?
Why is it necessary that the United States involve itself?
Wouldn't the end come quicker if NATO hit Serb units, particularly
artillery and tanks inside Kosovo?
Is NATO's objective to give the ethnic Albanians control over Kosovo?
What exactly is "ethnic cleansing" and how does it relate to the current
situation?
If the constitution gives the republics the right to secede, why can't
Kosovo secede?
Does Yugoslavia still exist?
What's the relationship between the Yugoslavian federal
government and the Serbian government -- and which one is running the
show?
How is the conflict in Kosovo
related to the Bosnia conflict?
Did the Dayton accords really work in Bosnia?
If NATO won't commit ground troops, why won't it arm the Kosovo
Liberation
Army instead?
In short, because despite sharing an enemy in Slobodan Milosevic, NATO and
the KLA don't share the same long-term aims. NATO's objective is to drive
Yugoslavian forces out of Kosovo in order to end their campaign of "ethnic
cleansing" and allow an international peacekeeping force in to protect
returning refugees. The alliance wants Kosovo to be given autonomy within
the Yugoslav federation, but opposes the full independence that the KLA
is fighting for, fearing that creating a new Kosovar-Albanian state would
further destabilize an already volatile region. Far from arming the KLA,
the peace agreement on Kosovo between Russia and the leading NATO countries
actually calls for the rebels to be disarmed as a condition for
ending the conflict. Many alliance members would therefore veto any move
to arm the KLA on the grounds that this would create more problems than it
would solve.
Back to top >>
How many Serb military personnel and civilians have been killed in the
current conflict with NATO?
Although firm casualty figures have been difficult to obtain throughout
the
NATO campaign against Serbia, casualty estimates have emerged. However,
as
is often the case during war, one side or the other inflates its own
casualty figures or offers exaggerated claims of enemy deaths. For
instance, in an attack on a Serbian television broadcasting station, a
British Broadcasting Corporation reporter at the scene witnessed five
bodies while Yugoslav authorities claimed at least 10 deaths. In
addition,
tight restrictions imposed by the Yugoslav government on Western
journalists working in Serbia have hampered efforts to garner reliable
casualty information. However, since many of the NATO air strikes have
been
against Yugoslavian military installations -- including barracks -- and
artillery and troop formations, it is reasonable to assume that some
Serbian military personnel have perished. According to official reports
from Belgrade, as of April 23, a total of 500 Yugoslavs had been killed
and over 4,000 injured.
Back to top >>
Why is the U.S. contributing the bulk of the aircraft used in the Kosovo
campaign when this is supposed to be a combined NATO operation?
The answer to this question is quite simply that the U.S. is the last
superpower, and maintains an air force many times larger than that of any
of its NATO allies. The U.S. military's goal is to maintain sufficient
forces to fight 2.5 regional conflicts anywhere in the world at any one
time. By
contrast, the armed forces of the other NATO members are equipped primarily
to defend their own borders. Thus in Kosovo, as in any large-scale NATO air
operation, the U.S. is providing the bulk of the strike craft. But many
other NATO members have contributed planes and personnel. By contrast, the
U.S. component of the NATO peacekeeping force demanded by
the Rambouillet Agreement had been 4,000 out of 20,000 troops.
Back to top >>
What was the ethnic background of Josip Broz Tito, who ruled Yugoslavia for
four decades after World War II? Did he show favoritism to any of
Yugoslavia's ethnic groups during his reign?
Tito was a Croat, but as a communist he believed that ideology was more
important than nationality, ethnicity or religion. He tried to take
Yugoslavia beyond its ethnic and religious divisions and create a single
Yugoslavian identity. Although his constitution distributed power among the
different Yugoslav republics -- Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and
Montenegro -- and gave them the right to secede, he sought to enforce an
end to the country's ethnic conflicts without actually resolving them. That
had the effect of simply freezing those conflicts, and after Tito died they
reemerged, whipped up by such nationalist politicians as President Slobodan
Milosevic and Croatia's President Franjo Tudjman.
Back to top >>
We often hear in the media that Greece, Turkey and other countries in
the
region could get dragged into the Kosovo conflict if the situation
deteriorates. Can you explain this?
Greece and Turkey have different ethnic, religious and political
allegiances to the peoples living in Kosovo and the nations surrounding
Yugoslavia. If rising tensions in those
countries -- Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria -- escalate into violent
conflict, Greece and Turkey may be drawn in to protect their own
interests.
Greece shares its Orthodox Christian faith with the Serbs and borders
with
both Albania and Macedonia. The Kosovo refugee crisis is already
threatening the stability of Macedonia, which comprises both a sizable
Albanian population and a restive, anti-NATO Serb community. Although
it
is a NATO member, Greece has called for an end to the alliance's bombing
of
Yugoslavia. Turkey, Greece's neighbor and historic rival, identifies
with
the Muslim
majority of Kosovo, which was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for five
centuries. Recent clashes along the Kosovo-Albania border signal the
potential for Albania to be drawn directly into the conflict, while
reports
of growing harassment by Serbs of ethnic Hungarians in northern Serbia
could also increase the pressure on Hungary -- one of NATO's newest
members
-- to respond.
Back to top >>
Why is the U.S. acting in Kosovo when it didn't intervene in other cases of
ethnic bloodshed such as the massacres in Rwanda?
Before intervening in a foreign conflict, Washington assesses whether U.S.
national interests are involved. In the case of Kosovo, the U.S. interest
is defined primarily by its relationship with NATO. By virtue of its
leadership of the alliance, the U.S. is bound to act alongside its NATO
allies when their security is threatened. Both Washington and European NATO
members have defined the Kosovo crisis as a threat to European security
because of the potential for conflict to spill across Yugoslavia's borders.
This argument has justified America's participation in NATO action against
Serb aggression in Kosovo.
While President Clinton has spoken of a moral imperative to act against
genocide -- and apologized when visiting Rwanda last year for
Washington's failure to intervene in any way to stop the killing there --
the U.S. remains unlikely to commit military resources to stop
bloodshed in a region where Washington has no strategic interest. This
is particularly so after the military disaster the U.S. suffered during its
Somalian humanitarian mission in the early '90s.
Back to top >>
Why are the Russians so opposed to the NATO air strikes? They have sent
warships to the region; is there really a chance they will attack American
forces in the area?
Although Russia had supported the NATO countries' peace plan for Kosovo,
Moscow has been staunchly opposed to military action against the Serbs. The
reasons for this opposition are both domestic and international: On the
home front, Russians' solidarity with their fellow Slavs now under attack
by the West puts tremendous pressure on Moscow's leadership to take a
stand. Internationally, the Russians fear the consequences of NATO's
unprecedented military intervention -- without consulting the United
Nations -- in what remains a domestic dispute in a sovereign country.
Bypassing the U.N. marginalizes Moscow from influence over world
events, which Russia finds unacceptable.
Despite the fact that Russia has moved a spy ship into the Adriatic to
monitor air strikes, few observers believe Moscow is inclined to challenge
NATO militarily over Kosovo. Events of the past two weeks suggest Moscow's
priority is to broker a peace deal, in the hope of restoring its status as
an important player on the international stage.
Back to top >>
How much does the bombing cost?
There are no official figures. But estimates by the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments are that the first 15 days of bombing
cost the U.S. $500 million. The breakdown: $220 million for 160 cruise
missiles; $70 million for air-defense suppression munitions that target
planes and antiaircraft sites; $70 million for one F117A shot down; $34
million for 3,400 air sorties at $10,000 each; $30 million for 6,000
sorties by guided munitions, and $76 million in miscellaneous costs.
Back to top >>
What, at this point, is the U.S. interest in bombing Kosovo?
NATO launched its campaign because it feared that unrest in Kosovo --
the
terrorizing of ethnic Albanian residents by Serbs and the guerrilla war
for
independence being fought by the ethnic Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army
--
would lead to a political crisis that could spread to neighboring
Macedonia, Albania and even Greece and Russia. It was also feared that
the
unrest would ultimately send tens of thousands of ethnic Albanian
refugees
flooding across Europe.
President Clinton stressed that the U.S. had an ethical responsibility
to
do whatever it could to prevent crimes against humanity -- Serbian
"ethnic
cleansing" of the Kosovar Albanians.
A week of NATO bombing has, ironically, resulted in exactly what NATO
was
trying to prevent. The Serbs stepped up their terror campaign, and
battered and hungry ethnic Albanian refugees now jam the roads out of
Kosovo. Still, Washington believes it must continue the air strikes to
stop the Serbs, as well as to wreck their capacity for war. NATO hopes
to
prepare the way for the Kosovar Albanian refugees eventually to return
to
their homes. Just as critical, NATO does not want to end the campaign
now,
in defeat, with its military credibility in tatters.
Back to top >>
What is the Kosovo Liberation Army, and have they also committed
atrocities?
The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was founded secretly in Pristina in
1993
as a guerrilla organization to fight for independence from Serbia.
Initially it was a violent fringe organization conducting occasional
attacks on Serb policemen and officials, while the majority of
ethnic Albanians put their faith in the moderation of pacifist leader
Ibrahim Rugova. But last summer's violent clashes between ethnic
Albanians
and the Serb authorities in the Drenica region saw thousands of young
men
flocking to join the lightly armed and poorly organized guerrilla army.
Escalation of the conflict put the KLA at the head of a Kosovo-wide
rebellion, which eventually eclipsed Rugova's influence -- both at home
and
among the financially important exile community -- and left him playing
second fiddle on the KLA-led negotiating team in France.
Although the U.S. apportions most of the blame for the Kosovo crisis on
the
Serb authorities, the State Department has on a number of occasions
during
the past year cited the KLA for provocative acts of violence and for
abuses
against Serb civilians in Kosovo.
Back to top >>
How can I find out about giving assistance to the refugees?
Consult these relief organizations, which are among those assisting
refugees:
International Rescue
Committee
Unicef USA
Doctors Without Borders
World Vision
CARE: The Kosovo Crisis
InterAction
Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies
International Committee of the Red Cross
Disaster Relief from
DisasterRelief.org
Catholic Relief
Services
Kosovo
Relief
ReliefWeb: Home
page
Doctors of
the
World
Adventist Development
and Relief Agency
U.N. High
Commissioner
for Refugees
International Committee for the Red Cross
World Food Program
U.N. Children's Fund
AmeriCares
You can also call the 1-800-USAID-REFUGEE hotline established by the
U.S. government.
Back to top >>
Has the U.S. declared war on Yugoslavia?
No, the U.S. has not declared war. The air strikes are being conducted
under the auspices of NATO. President Clinton, as Commander-in-Chief,
has
authorized U.S. participation in the operation. How far his authority
to
make this type of decision stretches has always been a point of
contention
between the President and Congress. So far, this Congress has
chosen to back the President and has not yet challenged his decision to
involve American personnel and equipment in the Kosovo conflict. The
bottom line is that Congress can always cut off funds for the operation,
or
raise strenuous objections if the President proposes to send U.S. ground
troops. The first option is very difficult because of the dangers it
would
pose for the
troops, while the issue of ground troops is at best hypothetical at this
point.
Back to top >>
Does Yugoslavia possess nuclear weapons?
During the Cold War, Yugoslavia would have been protected by the Soviet
nuclear umbrella, but it is not believed to possess nuclear weapons of
its own.
Back to top >>
If the Serbs claim that Kosovo is part of their heartland, how come 90
percent of the population is Albanian?
Back in the Middle Ages, the Islamic Ottoman
Empire conquered large swaths of Europe,
including Serbia, its territory of Kosovo -- which
fell in a battle known as the "Field of the
Blackbirds" in 1389 -- and Albania. During
Ottoman rule, Albanians converted to Islam
and, over time, many moved into nearby
Kosovo. By the begining of the 20th century, the
Ottoman Empire was in a state of disintegration,
and in 1912 -- more than 500 years after losing it
-- the Serbs regained Kosovo. They took
control of a territory where Christians were now in
the vast minority. About three quarters of
Kosovo's population of 300,000 were Muslims,
ethnic Albanians and Turks. The Muslims chafed
under Christian Serb rule and thousands of ethnic
Albanians were killed. Their chance for retaliation
came during WWII, when, armed by German and
Italian fascists, they drove out thousands of
Serbs. Kosovo was made part of Tito's unified
Yugoslavia at the end of the WWII, and in 1974
Tito granted Kosovo autonomous rule. Ethnic
Albanians used their majority position to harass
Serb
residents and thousands of Serbs left. By the time
Milosevic revoked Kosovo's autonomy in 1989,
only about 200,000 Serbs -- 10 percent of the
population -- were living there.
Some excellent maps showing the growth and contraction of the Ottoman
Empire are located at http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm.
Back to top >>
Why is this a NATO and not a U.N. operation?
The U.N. has not voted on the use of force against Yugoslavia. Once the
governments of the NATO countries decided it was necessary to intervene
in Kosovo, they acted without taking the issue to the U.N. Security
Council because military action would have almost certainly been vetoed by
both Russia
and China. Russia has a traditional alliance with the Serbs, while
China -- particularly because of its own internal political
situation -- opposes any international intervention in the domestic
affairs of sovereign nations like Yugoslavia.
Back to top >>
What Are the NATO Countries?
With the recent addition of three Eastern European states, NATO now has
19
members: Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland,
Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. NATO stands for
the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and its home page is located at http://www.nato.int/
Back to top >>
Is it safe to travel to Europe now?
We suggest you consult the State Department's Travel Warnings
page at http://travel.state.gov/travel_warnings.html.
Back to top >>
Why is it necessary that the United States, which is not a party to
either side in this conflict, involve itself?
Because of the potential for this conflict to destabilize
Europe. President Clinton insists that the current action
is designed to stop the conflict from spiraling out of control
and spreading to countries as far away as Greece and Russia.
Balkan conflict sparked the outbreak of World War I, and NATO
powers believe that if they don't subdue the current fighting
it will spill over into Macedonia and Albania, and send hundreds
of thousands of refugees flooding into Europe. The President
also stresses that the U.S. has an ethical responsibility
to do whatever it can to prevent crimes against humanity.
Back to top >>
Wouldn't the end come quicker if NATO hit Serb units, particularly
artillery and tanks inside Kosovo?
That remains NATO's stated objective if Milosevic fails to
back down. However NATO's priority in Phase 1 of the air campaign
has been to disable Serb air defenses to ensure the safety
of pilots who will undertake the more dangerous low-flying
missions against Serb units on the ground in Kosovo.
Back to top >>
Is NATO's objective to give the ethnic Albanians control over Kosovo?
NATO's peace plan is a compromise between the ethnic Albanian
demand for full independence and Serbia's desire to maintain
control of the province. Serbia would withdraw most of its
police and military forces, and Kosovo would be given autonomy
within Serbia. It would hold democratic elections and govern
itself on all matters except defense and foreign affairs,
which would remain in Serb hands. Because of their numerical
majority, the Kosovar Albanians would be expected to guarantee
the safety of the Serb minority.
Back to top >>
Is the conflict between Albanians and
Serbs a religious war?
No, although religious differences certainly play a
role in shaping the outlook of both sides. The Serbs are of the Eastern
Orthodox church (and ascribe a particular religious significance to Kosovo),
while the
Kosovar Albanians are Muslim. However, religion is just one of a slew of
differences between the Kosovar Albanians and Serbs -- the two peoples have
different origins, histories, cultures and even languages. The war is
best characterized as one between two ethnically diverse groups over the
political status of Kosovo.
Back to top >>
What exactly is "ethnic cleansing" and how does it relate to the current
situation?
"Ethnic cleansing," a term coined by the Serbs, is a euphemism
for terrorizing civilians into abandoning their homes, villages
and cities. The cleansers target civilian populations for
military attack, ousting them from their homes and even massacring
them in order to spread terror. The Serbs used this strategy
against Bosnians and Croats to expand the territory under
their control. In the current conflict, they've used similar
tactics to depopulate much of eastern Kosovo in a bid to flush
out the Kosovo Liberation Army.
Back to top >>
If the constitution gives the republics the right to secede, why can't
Kosovo secede?
Kosovo wasn't a republic as defined by the old Yugoslavian
constitution; it was an autonomous region within the Serbian
republic.
Back to top >>
Does Yugoslavia still exist?
Yes. Yugoslavia was a federal state whose constitution gave
its component republics the right to secede. The former Yugoslavian
republics of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia took
that route, while Serbia and Montenegro remain part of the
Yugoslav federation.
Back to top >>
What's the relationship between the Yugoslavian federal
government and the Serbian government -- and which one is running the
show?
The Yugoslavian federal government is the supreme power, under
President Milosevic, who
is also the former president of the Serbs. The Serb government
is a component member of the federation -- the dominant component
-- but ultimate authority rests with Milosevic's federal government.
Back to top >>
How is the conflict in Kosovo
related to the Bosnia conflict?
Both conflicts are rooted in the nationalist "Greater Serbia"
campaign through which Milosevic built his power. After taking
office as president of Yugoslavia, Milosevic in 1989 moved
to secure the Serbs' historic claim on Kosovo by revoking
the autonomy that Kosovo -- where 90 percent of the people
are ethnic Albanian --had previously enjoyed within Serbia.
That sparked resistance to Serb rule, which evolved into the
current fight for independence. Earlier, in Bosnia, under
the banner of the "Greater Serbia" campaign, Milosevic's allies
pursued horrific "ethnic cleansing" of non-Serb people in
order to expand Serb territorial control. Their brutality
sparked a war with the region's Bosnian and Croat populations.
Back to top >>
Did the Dayton accords really work in Bosnia?
Dayton successfully ended the fighting in Bosnia, although
the roots of the conflict -- and therefore its potential to
flare up again -- persist. And this has prompted NATO to repeatedly
renew the mandate of its peacekeeping force. Democratic elections
in the Serb section of Bosnia, for example, repeatedly return
leaders hostile to Dayton.
Back to top >>
|