THE PRESENT | THE REGION | THE FUTURE | THE PAST | CHATS | MESSAGE BOARDS

January 26, 2000
Web posted at: 1:44 p.m. EDT

	RESOURCES
CNN Chat Calendar How to Connect Message Boards Time Zone Converter Discussion Standards

(CNN) -- Jonathan Eyal, Director of Studies at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, joined the CNN.com chat room on January 26, 2000 to discuss military affairs in Kosovo.

The chat was part of a series that examined the climate of Kosovo since the bombings in Yugoslavia by NATO forces, and the future prospects for peace.

The following is an edited transcript of the chat with Eyal, who participated by telephone from England. CNN.com provided a typist for him.

Chat Moderator: Hello, Jonathan Eyal, and welcome to chat!

Jonathan Eyal: Thank you.

Chat Moderator: What kind of marks would you give NATO for its operation in Kosovo?

Jonathan Eyal: Well, I think we'd give the Alliance very high marks. Let's not forget that this was the first military operation that NATO has undertaken in 50 years. It was also an operation which involved 19 member states, 3 of them having joined only in the previous months. Finally, it was an Alliance, which, although had equal status for all its member states, remained dwarfed by the United States and divided internally about the ultimate aims of the operation.

So, whatever happened in Kosovo since the war ended, we have to admit that the Alliance succeeded in one thing. It has remained united. It has actually reversed the results of ethnic cleansing. 1,000,000 people have returned home. Many questions remain, of course, about what NATO could have done better. But as an alliance of 19 self-doubting member states with differing agendas, it has not done badly.

Chat Moderator: What do you believe is the greatest threat to peace and stability in Kosovo and the region?

Jonathan Eyal: There are effectively two threats, and they are quite separate. The first is the lack of democratic traditions of the ethnic Albanian majority, and the fact that almost a year after the war started, we are still not seeing the beginning of a democratic, modern political party. The second problem is the unanswered question of the future of Yugoslavia. The country at the moment is in suspended animation, isolated by the entire world, but with no one wanting to do more to change the political system inside Yugoslavia. As long as this "black hole" remains in the Balkans, as long as it is impossible to predict the future behavior of Yugoslavia, the entire region will remain rather unstable and apprehensive.

Chat Moderator: Is Montenegro the next flash-point in the Balkans?

Jonathan Eyal: Clearly, this Republic in Yugoslavia is now at the top of everyone's agenda. But at the same time, it's not inevitable that there will be further violence. In essence, what we are witnessing now in Montenegro, is a cat and mouse game between the Montenegran leadership, and the leadership of Yugoslavia. The Montenegran leadership wants to push for independence, but isn't sure that the people are ready. The Yugoslav leadership of Slobodan Milosevic may want to use force in order to prevent Montenegro from leaving the federation, but is also aware that using force against Montenegro could result in a civil war inside Yugoslavia itself.

Put simply, shooting Muslims in Kosovo or Bosnia is a different opposition from shooting Montenegrans who are closing related in ethnic terms to the Serbs. I suspect that President Milosevic will be very careful not to use force against Montenegro. What we are really witnessing is a battle for the very identity of Yugoslavia between the Serbs and the Montenegrans. This battle is still to be resolved. Clearly, if President Milosevic remains in power for much longer, Montenegro will decide to leave the Yugoslav Federation. So, as always, the man who can destroy the Federation completely remains the same: Mr. Milosevic.

THE PRESENT • Kosovo Journal • Situation Report • Reporter's Notebook • Missed Opportunities • Map: KFOR Troop Deployments • News report archive

Chat Moderator: Can Slobodan Milosevic survive the next year, given the growing opposition against him?

Jonathan Eyal: It is very difficult to predict in a curious kind of system, which Milosevic runs in Yugoslavia, how long he will remain in power. He is not a classical dictator; elections do take place in Yugoslavia, votes are counted, and people are free to criticize President Milosevic publicly. The problem is that the system relies on different mechanisms of control, on a small Mafia of close Milosevic allies, which controls both the economy and the security services. It also depends on Milosevic's ability to keep the opposition constantly divided.

Despite the fact that the opposition has decided last week on a joint political platform to oppose Milosevic, my feeling is that unless the opposition manages to attract the security services, and some of the elements of the military, President Milosevic will remain unmoved.

Clearly, however, Milosevic is cornered. The so called "inexplicable" political assassinations which have taken place over the last few months in Yugoslavia are an indication that Milosevic is now much weaker, much more fearful about his future, and much more determined to use any instrument in order to remain in power. Ultimately, however, it will not be pressure from the West or the effects of the economic embargo which will topple him. Almost everything depends on whether Milosevic can keep control over the security services. That, I suspect, not even Milosevic can predict how long it will last.

Question from Jim: Where do the rebels obtain the weapons to destroy heavy Russian armor?

Jonathan Eyal: That is one of the biggest imponderables of the war. There is no doubt that there has been some connivance of some government who has turned a blind eye to the smuggling of weapons to the KLA over a period of time. It is pointless to speculate which governments these may be, but we do know from the experience from places such as Croatia and Bosnia, that there has been a blind eye turned to weapons smuggling at times, especially by the United States government.

But, I do not think this was the most important element. Don't forget that Yugoslavia, even under Communism during the Cold War, allowed its citizens to travel freely. A lot of Yugoslav citizens worked in Western countries. Many of them, especially Switzerland, Germany and Austria, happened to be ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Furthermore, during the period of the Cold War, much of the drug-smuggling and Mafia activities in southern Europe was controlled by ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.

Indeed, many of the elements which formed the KLA in the beginning were rather unsavory. But, it is clear that they had both money and access to weapons in order to acquire what was needed. Finally, it was the virtual collapse of Albania next door, which allowed the KLA to acquire quite a lot of weapons, including some heavy artillery pieces, which a normal guerilla organization does not usually hope to possess.

Question from Haley: What does the assassination of Arkan do to help or hinder the peace effort?

Jonathan Eyal: The assassination of Arkan, one of the biggest murderers in the history of modern Yugoslavia, probably has no impact on the future of democracy in that country. Arkan was a creation of the Yugoslav security services, and of President Milosevic. He needed someone to do the dirty work for him. He also needed Arkan to use him against the West. For many years, Milosevic used the presence of Arkan in order to tell Western governments that whether they like it or not, they should support Milosevic, because if he went, a much worse leader, in the shape of Arkan, could take power.

Now, what has happened recently is that Arkan is no longer necessary. Most of the dirty work has been done. The West is no longer buying the argument that Milosevic is the best of any potential Yugoslav leader. Finally, there was the possibility of Arkan joining with the other opposition leaders, and turning on his old master, Milosevic. In short, Arkan was dispensable, and unsurprisingly, he was dispensed with. It doesn't change anything as far as the future of democracy in the area, although it's a shame that Arkan didn't end before a tribunal. Otherwise, what happened to Arkan could not have happened to a nicer guy.

Question from Jeffhole: Don't you think that the whole [NATO] operation was pretty late?

Jonathan Eyal: The simple answer is that it was. The Kosovo crisis began in 1987, when Milosevic rose to power on the promise of crushing the ethnic Albanians. The intense violence and the fighting with the KLA started in January 1998. But the West waited another year and a half almost after that, before the war began. The simple answer is therefore that NATO was late. But one also needs to remember that we're not running an academic seminar here. We live in the real world. There are other political interests to balance. The reality is that NATO as a whole was involved in a much bigger problem in Bosnia. It occupied our energies.

Secondly, there was an attempt to avoid a dispute with Russia over Kosovo. Everyone tried to go the extra mile in the hopes that a deal could be made. Thirdly, NATO is an alliance of democracies, and democracies have to be persuaded that the use of force was the very last option after all other peaceful options had been exhausted. Democracies remain very good at fighting wars imposed on them, but very bad at anticipating crises that are about to blow up. That is unlikely to change, as we've seen with the Kosovo crisis.

Having said all that, however, it is also true to say that NATO as a whole, and especially the British government, were ready to use force in August, 1998, a full six months before the war began. The reasons we did not do that, and accepted yet again a false promise from Milosevic, was that the U.S. administration was then embroiled in the impeachment scandal, and didn't feel it wanted another crisis in the Balkans. So, as always, it is a mixture of cool strategic calculations, and long-term political arrangements.

Question from P1: Agim Ceku was a commander in the Croatian forces that cleansed Croatia of 250,000 Serbs. He is now a leader of the KLA. Why is NATO dealing with this guy, particularly with his violent history against Serbs?

Jonathan Eyal: The simple answer is that NATO is not dealing with this guy directly. The alliance has tried very hard for the last 8 months to deal with peaceful moderate Albanian leaders who do not have blood on their hands. One of the reasons why the alliance did not move to hold elections in Kosovo was precisely in order to prevent these elections from being won by people such as those mentioned by the questioner.

The sad reality of Kosovo is that the people who have used force are also the people who hold power today. I have no doubt that one of the biggest failures of the Alliance, when the history of this conflict is written, will be the fact that we succeeded in reversing one ethnic cleansing, that of the Albanians, only to tolerate another ethnic cleansing, that of the Serbs.

I think that the Alliance could have done much more to prevent the expulsion of the Serbs, and of the gypsies, who have suffered an equal tragedy which no one discusses. We could have prepared ourselves before the operation began. We could have made a statement in the Serb language as the troops entered, making sure that people would be protected. We could have demanded that no Albanian return to the province with his weapon. None of these things were done.

At the end of the day, let us remember that the person who ultimately destroyed the multi-ethnic character of Kosovo, was Milosevic himself. The moment this terrible cycle of events started, I am sorry to say, it was very difficult to believe that the Serbs could have remained in the Balkans. They are the victims of a policy which began in Belgrade. Nothing justifies what has happened against the Serbs. But we much never forget that the ultimate blame for that is with Milosevic, not the NATO alliance. It's a fallacy to claim that NATO is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs. It is right, however, to criticize NATO for turning a blind eye to the expulsion of the Serbs, rather like NATO has done when the Serbs were expelled from Croatia in 1995.

Question from Only: This question was asked many times during the debate as to whether the US should intervene militarily: can Western military presence actually reverse the centuries-old tide of ethnic violence? Or are NATO troops only putting a finger in the dike, so to speak, and delaying the inevitable - a resumption of violence- once the troops leave?

Jonathan Eyal: Well, the simple answer is that force cannot persuade people to live happily with each other. But, if we look at the other countries in which force was used in Yugoslavia, we will see that it is possible to use force in order to create some circumstances where people could live with each other. Bosnia has not been recreated, but the Bosnian Croats are now being pushed back into cooperation with the Muslims, and it is still possible that the Serbs of Bosnia will also agree to cooperate. There is nothing inevitable about nationalism that needs to leave to mass massacres.

At the same time, the proposition in your question is correct. Three countries in Europe collapsed since the end of the Cold War. They are Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. In all three of them, the main question was the ethnic identity of the state. That is not a question which can get an answer by military force. We cannot sit in NATO and decree that people should live with each other. What we can demand, however, is that in Europe the divorce, if it has to come, is not bloody.

Chat Moderator: Do you have any final thoughts you would like to share with us?

Jonathan Eyal: I think that the Kosovo conflict is another indication of how at the end of the day, the Europeans needed American leadership, if not in military terms, at least in political terms. In spite all of the mistakes which may have been committed, history will look kindly on this operation as being one where the Europeans and the Americans went to war, not because their security was directly threatened, but because the essence of the principles for which Europe and North America stand, were being challenged.

Chat Moderator: Thank you for joining us today.

Jonathan Eyal: Thank you.