The Center for Defense Information
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202)462-4559 * www.cdi.org
| April 8, 1999 |
| April 8, 1999 |
The End Game in Yugoslavia
By Tomas Valasek, Research Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
The third week of NATO air strikes is under way with no end in sight. NATO forces expanded the target list from air defense, military equipment and storage facilities to various support facilities (many of which serve dual military-civilian purpose) such as railways, oil refineries, roads and bridges over the Danube. NATO's naval forces in the Adriatic and the Mediterranean nearly doubled and more aircraft are being moved to southeastern Europe (see note below). The campaign is intensifying. With the Serb-announced suspension of operations in Kosovo, NATO's goal seems to have shifted to inflicting long-term damage on the Yugoslav military, rather than hitting the Serb units in the Kosovo province.
How will the campaign end? To stop the bombing, the United States insists, Milosevic must: 1) accept an agreement for an international security force in Kosovo, 2) withdraw Serb security forces from Kosovo, 3) find a way for the refugees to be returned, and 4) agree on an new autonomous political status for the province. Of the four provisions, the planned peacekeeping force is the biggest thorn in the Yugoslav side. Significantly, U.S. State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin departed from previous insistence on a NATO-led force to stressing an "international security force." The change could possibly leave room for compromise on whose hat the peacekeepers would wear -- a NATO force is an anathema to the Serbian regime.
But in the end, the timing of the campaign may be determined as much by NATO internal struggles as by actions of the Yugoslav government. NATO is an alliance of 19 members all of which could theoretically veto the operation. Needless to say, the different attitudes of the NATO governments and the complexity and the pace of NATO operations are putting the alliance unity to a test.
The Italian and Greek governments called for a halt to the bombing in the earlier stages of the operation. After some persuasion, both governments went along with the campaign. The Italian Prime Minister D'Alema's support for NATO operation seem to have increased after his visit to the refugee camps in Macedonia over Easter but he will be careful to avoid alienating the Italian Green and the Communists parties, whose support is indispensable to his government's survival.
Greece, with its traditional ties to the Orthodox Serbs has taken an even stronger opposition to bombing. The Athens government, however, can hardly afford to split with the alliance. It relies on NATO support in its long-standing rivalry with another alliance member, Turkey, with whom it twice almost went to war in the last decade. Because of Turkey's overwhelming conventional superiority, support for Greece from other NATO members would be crucial in case of a conflict.
The United States, which has been accused by other allies for dictating NATO positions without consulting its partners in the alliance, will need to play a careful balancing game. On the one hand the Administration will seek to avoid cessation of the bombing without firm commitments from the Yugoslav side. President Milosevic has signed and completely disregarded a number of agreements with NATO or the United States. If Milosevic only agrees to negotiate and then reneges on his promises, the alliance may be unable to muster the political will to resume bombing, letting Milosevic walk away with impunity for his brutal actions in Kosovo.
Milosevic is clearly aware of the difficulties of steering a 19-member body on a clear political course. The latest cease-fire offers were clearly designed to split the alliance or stop the campaign in the hope that it will not resume.
On the other hand, the longer the bombing continues and the longer U.S. officials avoid defining a clear strategy to end the campaign, the stronger opposition in NATO will become. As NATO continues to expand the scope of the campaign more allies will become concerned. Not only are NATO missiles and bombs destroying the Serbian economy -- with the price tag for post-war reconstruction skyrocketing -- but the campaign is taking on an increasingly punitive nature, adrift from a clear political strategy. Earlier this week allies called a meeting of foreign ministers for Monday, April 12. U.S. officials will almost certainly be asked the hard questions: when do you say "enough" and what diplomatic initiatives are planned to bring the fighting to an end?
Russia Reacts to War in Yugoslavia
Prepared by David Johnson, Editor of CDI's Russia Weekly, djohnson@cdi.org
President Yeltsin: "Our fundamental position is not to get sucked into a big war and not to deliver arms....I repeat again Russia will not get involved if the Americans do not push us."
Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev: "The plans to strengthen the armed forces are explained by the new strategic concept of NATO, under which the alliance intends to use force without the UN Security Council's consent -- in any part of the world."
General Viktor Chechevatov (Commander of ground forces in Far East region): "The bombing of Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to be just a rehearsal for similar strikes on Russia."
Aleksandr Lebed (governor of Krasnoyarsk Krai): "The Americans are used to fighting television wars. For them war is like a Star Wars movie. It is nothing of the kind. The Serbs have strong morale and centuries-old traditions of partisan warfare. Their country will be demolished but not defeated in bombing."
Mikhail Gorbachev: "The position of the U.N. Security Council has been undermined, and now Europe has been shown who is the boss -- and I know this because I hear it from the Europeans. Russia is being humiliated....
`This will push an arms race in every country in the world. There is a real threat that in many countries there may be an effort to get...weapons of mass destruction. I believe this will also give impetus to terrorism."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "Casting off the United Nations and its charter, NATO is imposing on the whole world and the next century an ancient law...whoever's strongest is right. In the eyes of humanity, a wonderful European country is being destroyed, and civilized governments are applauding."
Alexei Arbatov (moderate member of Parliament): "This is the most dangerous crisis between Russia and the U.S. since the Cuban missile crisis."
Aman Tuleyev (governor of Kemerovo): "The war in Yugoslavia should unite us. We have to change our attitude to the army and think that if the United States changes its adversaries each time -- now it is Iraq and then Yugoslavia -- then we can be the next."
Patriarch Aleksiy II (head of Russian Orthodox Church): "The Orthodox Easter lies ahead. So, if they carry on bombing over the Orthodox Easter, what kind of Christians are they? They are not Christians. They are barbarians."
Moscow Times editorial: "From the start, NATO has bluffed and blundered its way through the Balkans, and now it finds itself backing into a ground war in Europe - slowly, inexorably and without any one real consensus as to why."
Sergey Karaganov (head of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, member of the Presidential Council): "If looking at the Serbs we have realized how vulnerable we are and will start sorting out our problems, this will be our salvation. But if we opt for sorting out other people's problems to the detriment or at the expense of Russian problems, or for saving the West or saving the Serbs at Russia's expense, then this will be our undoing. We are quite close to a very dangerous threshold because we are falling to pieces but if we get directly involved in this situation, we will be finished off."
Yegor Gaidar (former reformist prime minister): "What is going on has a very serious and negative influence on Russian-U.S. relations. I am afraid this [outcome] can be a long-term one. If today's tendency continues, [I think] it could inevitably bring the restoration of the Cold War -- in a different form, not as in the '60s. Russia [now] is different. The world is different. But the creation of relations like during the Cold War [is possible,] with a Russia that is afraid of the world, of NATO, of America, has missiles, a mobilized economy, is friendly with authoritarian and rogue regimes, helps them with technologies, helps them create nuclear weapons."
Sovetskaya Rossiya (leftwing newspaper): "The U.S. missiles exploding in Yugoslavia had very loud and unexpected repercussions in Russia. The tumultuous protest rallies around the U.S. Embassy in Moscow mark the entry into the political arena of hitherto 'slumbering' social forces. The bombing of Serbia has led to the radicalization of youth. The United States has suffered a massive political defeat in Russia: The fruits of its efforts over many years and the many billions spent on indoctrinating Russian youth in the spirit of 'Western values' were destroyed in a trice."
Russian tax advisor to British Moscow-based journalist Helen Womack: "Tito settled the Albanians in Kosovo, rather as Stalin moved populations in the Soviet Union. The Albanians had bigger families than the Serbs, so that they came to outnumber them in the historic heart of Serbia. There is a Serb point of view here too. Why are you taking sides in a complicated issue you know too little about? Why don't you listen to Russia? Do you think because we are economically weak, our opinion does not count?"
Alexander Pikayev (analyst at Carnegie's Moscow Center): "I'm afraid that now it is serious; we see some sort of consensus in society which we haven't seen since 1991. Then, it was a broad anti-communist consensus. Now, unfortunately, we face a strong anti-NATO consensus, which could have a very dramatic impact on the overall U.S.-Russian relationship. In August, we saw the collapse of Yeltsin's market-reform policy and in March, we saw the collapse of Yeltsin's foreign and security policy."
Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov (head of the Defense Ministry's Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation: "NATO has negated the fundamental principles upon which Russia's relations with this bloc were based....I feel ashamed when I look at the signatures in the Founding Act put by the heads of state who have spat at them now....There is no guarantee that the NATO countries will comply with the agreements to be reached in the future....It is hard to say when a constructive period in relations with NATO will be resumed."
The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, economic, social, military, and foreign policy issues. To receive the Russia Weekly, e-mail David Johnson.
Congress Moves to Boost Military Spending
Chris Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
Just before heading out for the current Spring recess, both the House and Senate adopted their respective versions of the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution, which sets overall spending levels for each annual appropriations bills. While the numbers in the two versions vary slightly, both add $8 billion to the Administration's spending plan for the Pentagon, and do so by cutting other federal programs.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) set specific limits on annual discretionary spending -- the money that the President and Congress must decide on and act to spend each year. In addition, the BBA set caps on the amount of total defense vs. non-defense discretionary spending, and created "firewalls" between the two categories. Until this year, any reductions in either the defense or non-defense accounts could only be used for deficit reduction, and could not be transferred to the other account. Members of Congress interested in increasing military spending could not do so by cutting other federal discretionary programs. However, the firewalls expire this year, and with them gone, the BBA only caps the total amount of discretionary spending, making it possible to shift funds between defense and non-defense programs.
Last year, Congress and the Administration agreed to add $23 billion in federal spending to the levels set for FY'99 by the BBA, including $8.3 billion for the military. They did this by declaring the additional spending as "emergency," and thus exempt from BBA caps. The funds were then taken from the FY'98 budget surplus. This year's budget resolution complies with the BBA, and therefore, in order to increase military spending, reductions had to be made in other federal programs.
Both budget resolutions increase military spending by $16 billion over last year's appropriated levels to about $289 billion. This is approximately $8 billion more than the Administration's request for FY'00, and $17 billion more than was planned for FY'00 in the BBA.
To help fund these increases, the House proposes a 19% reduction for community and regional development programs, which provide local governments with funds to promote economic development and job creation. The Senate version makes even deeper cuts, reducing the program by 42%. Both the House and Senate cut the commerce and housing credit accounts by 32%. These funds support small and minority businesses and the Federal Housing Assistance (FHA) program.
Most telling perhaps is the Senate's proposal to cut the International Affairs budget (Function 150) by $4.9 billion, to $12.5 billion, a reduction of 28%. The House goes even further, reducing funding by nearly 36% below the Administration's request. These cuts are even more draconian when you consider that the International Affairs budget for FY'90 was $18.6 billion, which, if adjusted for inflation, would be $23.2 billion in current dollars.
The congressional leadership's spending priorities are clear -- weapons at the expense of job creation and assisting low-income Americans, war-fighting at the expense of international diplomacy.
There are some practical ramifications of the proposed budget as well. According to some estimates, the budget resolutions will require a 27% reduction of non-defense discretionary programs by 2004, yet they do not make decisions about how to achieve this. There is growing concern that when members of Congress are actually called upon to vote for the specific cuts needed to make this budget work, they will find the political choices too tough. Unable to reach agreement and pass annual spending bills, Congress would likely be faced with additional government shut-downs. In fact, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a member of the Appropriations Committee and top-ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, recently referred to the budget proposal as "a roadmap to gridlock."
This week on America's Defense Monitor: "Child Combatants: the Road
to Recovery"
A case study of programs to rehabilitate the lives of former child combatants in the West African country of Sierra Leone gives viewers an in-depth look at the challenges and complexities involved in helping children lay down their guns and become productive citizens.
Featuring interviews with experts such as Dr. Neil Boothby, Senior Coordinator for Refugee Children at the United Nations, and former child soldiers.
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, April 11 at 12:30 pm on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Friday, April 16 on Channel 25 at 8:30 p.m., and on
Saturday at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
For air dates in other cities, check your local listings.
For more information on child soldiers, visit the website at: http://www.cdi.org/adm/1201
To receive regular updates on new video releases from the Center for Defense Information, e-mail adminfo@cdi.org with the message "subscribe."
Regular Price: $39 each
**Special CDI Weekly Subscriber Price: $34 each**
Price includes shipping.
HOW TO ORDER:
Call 1-800-CDI-3334, or send your name, shipping address, and check/money
order made out to Center for Defense Information, or your Visa or
Mastercard number with expiration date. CDI also accepts institutional
purchase order numbers. Allow two weeks for delivery. For rush orders
please inquire.