The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb, and gradually being convinced to allow for an expansion. NATO was made up of many countries with different positions, and the development of the war has to be seen as a matter of compromise internationally and also nationally (between Clinton and a Republican Congress).
Yes, because Albright took up Thaci's demand. After the Serbian side said they agree and Thaci said they don't, Albright changed the text. This wasn't a single example of Albright (wittingly or unwittingly) playing for war during the negotiations, consaider also the issue of NATO or civilian peacekeeper leadership.
and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.
Which was the end of it. Then as Wiki says, the Serbian Parliament accepted the non-military part of the second version of the Rambouillet proposal, and Wiki goes into details about what Serbia [rest-Yugoslavia] objected to.
The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb
This was more complex. On one hand, the US held some target decisions for itself, which hapened to be the most sensitive: especially those involving stealth planes. On the other hand, they held intel information regarding why they picked targets for themselves. In the end, war by committee wasn't really by committee.
Then again, the "sexed-up dossier" and the "45 minutes claim" of that war didn't came from Britain but Germany. I mean the claims about a pre-planned "Operation Horseshoe" and about torture chambers and concentration camp in Pristina's stadium. So there was cooperation and also in the dark dealings.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
All of this happened within the space of 6 days before the campaign started, as the wiki article seems to suggest. So the narrative that the Serbs compromised almost completely but their enemy was bent on war (mimicking the WWI narrative) doesn't hold up. Once you have an agreement on a civilian peacekeeping force, you have to negotiate about its size, makeup, rules of engagement, etcetera. So just proposing that you may wish to allow a civilian peacekeeping force isn't much of a step forward to the demand that 30,000 NATO troops are allowed in.
Whether or not there was an operation horseshoe is still uncertain. The actions of the Serbs during the war suggest that something similar existed. Of course, the existence of a plan doesn't necessarily mean that it will be carried out.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 44 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Oui - Jun 91 comment
by Oui - Jun 58 comments
by Oui - Jun 256 comments
by Oui - Jun 112 comments
by Oui - May 31110 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 3044 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2742 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 928 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2666 comments
by Oui - Apr 8108 comments
by Oui - Mar 19145 comments