Letters: The Balkans (Aug 2001)

The following letter is in response to James S. Robbin's Commentary: "The Balkans: A Time for Principled Action" from the May 2001 issue of Navigator

8 July 2001

Dear Navigator:

James S. Robbins' essay "The Balkans: A Time for Principled Action" (May 2001) raises some troubling issues for our foreign policy. In spite of his goal of providing clear principles for U.S. actions in the Balkans, I found Professor Robbins' prescriptions to be rather vague. And indeed, I don't think that there are easy answers to be found. In this letter, however, I should like to address two concrete details of the article, and to raise one general proposal.

The first detail is that Professor Robbins claims that the "existence of a systematic attempt at genocide . . . has yet to be demonstrated." It is true that we overestimated the scale of the atrocities in Kosovo in 1998- 99. However, our perceptions of what was going on in Kosovo at that time and, more to the point, our expectations of what would happen were we not to intervene, were shaped by actual events: the events which took place in Bosnia in 1992-95. Amid atrocities committed by all three sides, the murders, tortures, dispossession and destruction perpetrated by elements of the Bosnian Serb forces stand out. This was undoubtedly genocide. Whether it was systematic might be at issue. What would constitute that? If it could be proved that Milosevic (or Karadzic, or Miadic) had phoned up Arkan or Seselj and said, "Kill every Muslim man in this town, rape every Muslim woman, burn every Muslim house"? If what went on was unsystematic, I doubt that it was the less evil for it.

The second detail is that Professor Robbins points out that readiness ratings have been degraded by peace- keeping missions. This issue was brought up during the presidential campaign, and it depends upon a misunderstanding. When a division's combat readiness is reported, this reflects its general ability to deploy and go to war in any theatre, for any contingency. If a division has a brigade deployed to Bosnia or Kosovo, then this obviously impairs its ability to pick up and go to war in, say, Oman or Latvia or Ghana. I was with elements of the 1st Infantry Division in Kosovo in the fall of 1999 when its "not-combat-ready" status was leaked to the press (and it was leaked). Everyone was, to say the least,-miffed. While there is no question that in some aspects our readiness for full-scale multi-contingency warfighting was impaired by having been actively engaged in a peace-keeping mission, we knew that we were prepared to go to war in that theatre. Our commanding general had to put out a message to everyone explaining that the readiness report did not reflect upon our training, supplies, equipment, or personnel. It merely stated an obvious fact: with a brigade committed to Kosovo the division could not be readily deployed at proper strength to a conflict elsewhere. Yet this was generally ignored in the press, for a leaked report which stated the obvious would make a much less interesting story than a leaked report which indicated failure.

As for policy, I am sceptical of the prospects for pure diplomacy in the Balkans, largely in view of UNPROFOR's failure in 1992-95 (which was caused by the UN's unwillingness to engage in military action). I am also sceptical of the wisdom of pulling all U.S. troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo, for no other country, not even Great Britain, has the credibility of the U.S. as the guarantor of what peace exists in the region. But I would like to raise a broader issue here.

If a criminal is robbing someone, I am justified in intervening to stop it. If a parent is beating her child, I am justified in intervening to stop it. Provided certain rules and laws defining procedure and authority are followed, the right to act to protect individual rights is never in question. But what of the obligation? Am I always obliged to take action to protect the rights of others? No. There are undoubtedly issues of proximity, risk, and cost. Am I ever obliged to do so (speaking simply as a human, and not someone whose job is to do so, as with a police officer or soldier)? Yes. Why? Because it is in our individual interest to create and maintain a system in which individual rights are protected. And we do not need to show in each case a direct link between the protection of a particular individual's rights and the safety of our own. (It would be rare where we could do so.) What we are committed to here is a principle, that the rights of each individual shall be protected, and we serve our own interest by upholding this principle.

Political theorists have traditionally considered this obligation, if at all, as within political bodies. But our individual rights do not belong to us as citizens, but as humans. And in the muddle of the Balkans I think that we can see the germ of something great and historic. In the past, international intervention has been pursued largely on behalf of the rights of nation-states. When one country invades another, intervention has been justified by the protection of the 'sovereignty' of the invaded country. Examples in the past half- century have included Korea, the Falklands, and Kuwait. But in Kosovo in 1999 Serbia's sovereignty did not represent a shroud to cover and protect the violation of individual rights. In this case NATO was willing to step forward, beyond its own member states, and act to end injustice.

No, we cannot and should not intervene everywhere. And we must admit that liberty is not perfectly observed in any NATO country, not even in our own. But I submit that on the whole liberty is better observed in NATO countries than in most other countries of the world. If we can extract from what NATO has done in the Balkans a new principle, that countries can act in concert to extend the sphere in which basic rights of life, liberty, and property are observed, then this is a great and noble thing. NATO action in the Balkans has depended critically on American leadership, and it will likely do so for some time. Yes, the European countries of NATO should play a greater role. But it is my belief that they will only come to do so if we give them an example to follow.

U.S. peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo wear the Stars and Stripes on the right shoulder, in all its non- subdued glory. They do so for symbolic reasons. I have seen what our flag means in the faces of men, women, and children in both countries. I am quite certain that, had the US. not intervened, many of these faces would be faces of the dead. To them (and they often said as much) the American flag was the very breath of life. It is quite something to have a child look at you as the protector of everything which is right and good because of a patch on your shoulder. I hope that our flag shall always have that meaning. Our job as intellectuals is to articulate the principles which will guide this; my job as a soldier is to act upon them.

Kenneth G. Beare
SGT, USA
Schweinfurt, Germany

P.S. The views expressed above are my own and are not to represent the government of the United States, the Department of Defense, or the United States Army.