nato has established a Kosovo protectorate at the cost of great suffering for its people, and in a manner calculated to store up future problems. The bombing by nato generalized and greatly intensified the persecution of the Kosovans and destroyed infrastructure throughout Yugoslavia. There were thousands of civilian and refugee casualties and, despite the claims for precision weapons, many errors.
Some critics of the air war argue that a ground assault should have been mounted from the beginning. On this point, the nato high command had a more realistic grasp. The Serb army was well dug in and possessed thousands of rocket launchers, mortars and artillery pieces. While the ultimate outcome would never have been in doubt, the casualties would have been very high, civilian as well as military. No sane commander would prefer a contested entry in such circumstances, amongst some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable, to the prior destruction of the enemy’s hardware, supply dumps, communications and morale. Advocates of a ground assault might claim that it would have avoided sorties against civilian targets, the use of cluster bombs, and some of the errors. But the prior aerial bombardment had a perfect military logic, and it was the first week of bombing that precipitated the catastrophe, as hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes by enraged and murderous Serb soldiers and paramilitaries.
The disastrous air war was wrong not because there was another military option, but because, from the outset, a deal was available providing for the withdrawal of Serb forces, and their replacement by a un security force, but it foundered because it did not give nato the protectorate it wanted. The Yugoslav government was willing, under great pressure, to sign up to such a package after Rambouillet but refused to accept the military provisions of the Agreement. These provisions stipulated that the international security force would be nato-led, that it would have the right of inspection throughout the Yugoslav republic, and that its members would be exempt from responsibility for their actions before local courts. Moscow attacked
An item on the failed Rambouillet negotiations in the New York Times for 8 April, 1999 observed: ‘In a little-noted resolution of the Serbian Parliament just before the bombing, when that hardly independent body rejected nato troops in Kosovo, it also supported the idea of un forces to monitor a political settlement there.’ The Serbian delegation, under duress, had been willing to accept the principles of the Rambouillet package, save for the very detailed twenty-fifth chapter on the nato-led occupation force. When Milosevic made a deal at Dayton, he implemented it punctiliously, accepting the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Serbs from lands they had long inhabited. Even if implementation of a Kosovo deal had been more difficult, the relationship of forces, both in Kosovo and in the world, would have ensured compliance without the horrendous cost the war has entailed.footnote1
In late April and early May, a new round of diplomatic mediation, assisted by the governments of Russia and Finland, again foundered on nato insistence that the proposed security force should be built around a nato ‘core’. Following a meeting of the g8, the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, made it clear no agreement had been reached on this issue because Russia could not accept the transformation of Kosovo into a nato protectorate. The Western insistence on a controlling role for nato thus precluded a combined approach to Belgrade and doomed the prospects for a Security Council resolution on the question. This phase of negotiation was brought to an end by the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, without the West having made any concession on nato’s role.