Transatlantic Security
Back to the main
page on Transatlantic Security
NATO
NATO Foreign Ministers Meet in Brussels
12 April 1999
By David Fouquet
NATO Headquarters, Brussels
NATO Foreign Ministers gathered in Brussels
Monday for an unusual session devoted to the three-week war
in Yugoslavia. The ministers appeared to grope for "third
party" mediation efforts to resolve the conflict and for additional
strategies of its own in the aftermath of its still inconclusive
air campaign on Yugoslavia.
In a day of talks which produced few evident
concrete decisions, the Alliance and individual Ministers
nevertheless appeared to have issued a number of modifications
in their rhetoric in the hopes it could provide an opening
for United Nations, Russian or other contacts with Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic. German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer before and during the meeting floated a plan for a
greater role for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE). Fischer's French colleague Hubert Vedrine
stressed the possibility of a UN Security Council initiative,
although this would possible only if Russia lent its weight
to it and carried China along. Some also suggested that Greek
non-governmental organizations, the only ones still in place
in Kosovo might also be useful in a humanitarian role because
of the Athens Government's general sympathy to the Serbs and
the religious links between the two countries.
The declarations emerging from the Brussels
NATO Headquarters generally diluted some of the earlier NATO
positions on such issues as the Rambouillet autonomy plan
for Kosovo, the NATO leadership for a peace enforcement military
mission, or possibly the complete withdrawal of Serb military
and security personnel from Kosovo. But they restated NATO
demands for President Milosevic to end violence and withdraw
Serbian forces from Kosovo, agree to the stationing of "an
international military presence" there, and accept the Rambouillet
plan as the "basis" for a settlement. They also added the
more recent demands that refugees be allowed to return to
their homes and that access by humanitarian organisations
be accepted.
Other major elements of the discussions included
preparations for an 8000-strong NATO force, which was being
deployed to assist humanitarian refugee operations in Albania
and the urgent need to provide relief for the several hundred
thousand Kosovar Albanian refugees still in Kosovo. Most emphasised
the Alliance's new demand that the refugees be allowed to
return to their homelands in security, but did not spell out
the specific circumstances under which they could return to
the largely devastated villages and regions. But despite the
build-up of political pressure in Washington and some support
in public opinion in some European NATO countries for the
deployment of ground forces, Ministers seemed to reject any
military intervention that would have to fight its way into
the province. They refused to define the notion of "a permissive
environment" that would lead them to dispatch ground troops
to Kosovo.
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said that
it would take two or three months to prepare an invasion force
and that "we don't have two or three months" to come to the
aid of refugees in Kosovo. Several Ministers and sources stressed
that the meeting was not called to formulate major decisions
but to take stock and reaffirm Alliance solidarity in the
face of widespread criticism and scepticism about the limited
nature of the precision bombing campaign.
The strategy discussions were taking place just
before what the Alliance was seeking to signal as possibly
a major new phase in their intensification of the bombings
of military, police, paramilitary and dual-use and infrastructure
targets throughout Yugoslavia. Participants and sources noted
repeatedly that the air bombing of Iraq lasted 55 days and
that the Alliance would continue its deliberate campaign of
attacks on Yugoslavia as long as required. One NATO source
said the Allied air campaign strategy was not based on the
concept of "carpet bombing" as in World War II, but was a
campaign of "attrition" aimed at eroding Yugoslav military
capability. One knowledgeable NATO source said that they were
seeking to develop a diplomatic initiative with the help of
other parties, that would perhaps be more acceptable to Milosevic
while signaling to him that a significant round of escalations
in their military actions was being prepared. Ministers noted
that the numbers of Allied aircraft had increased some 60
percent from 400 to 560 since the start of the operations
and that the number of cruise missile platforms had also increased
from 10 to 19. Some also noted the ongoing deployment of US
Apache combat helicopter gunships and multiple launch rocket
systems (MLRS) to Albania for possible cross-border on Serb
tanks and other mobile targets into Yugoslavia.
Several participants underlined that while the
gathering was not meant to make major decisions it was essentially
designed to demonstrate to public opinion and to Serbia that
the Alliance remained in complete solidarity behind the plans.
Several noted the more moderate tone of the Greek Foreign
Minister Papandreou during this session than on previous occasions.
They also said that the Ministers began discussions
in Brussels that were expected to lead to a more complete
proposal to be issued at the Washington Summit in late April.
This more general strategic plan for the Balkans region, included
what they referred to as the integration of a democratic Serbia
into the regional and European context. Statements at the
Brussels session also stressed the apparently growing expression
of Alliance security guarantees to neighboring Albania and
Macedonia. They also issued a warning that Serb threats to
the integrity of the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro would
not be tolerated.
David Fouquet is a journalist specializing
in European Security matters.
He wrote this report from NATO HQ for BASIC.
Back to Summit Updates
Back to Trans-atlantic
Security Home Page
|
