© The Daily Free Press, The Independent Student Newspaper at Boston University, 04/01/99

We, the Serbian students and professors of Boston University, would like to use this opportunity to express our views on the current Kosovo crisis. We would like to convey the extreme complexity of the situation, and to present reasons why we believe that the NATO action, which is opposed by such world leaders as Mandela and Pope John Paul II, is not justifiable, nor likely to lead to a peaceful resolution.

Why is Kosovo so important to Serbs? Kosovo is the cradle of Serbian culture, spirituality and statehood. The Serbian people have been living in Kosovo since the 7th century. It is as important to us as Jerusalem is to Jews or Mecca to Muslims. It contains numerous monasteries that date back to the 13th century. Some of these historical and religious sites are protected by UNESCO as the treasures of human civilization. One of them, the Gracanica monastery, has been damaged during the NATO attacks.

Is the picture about the Serbs, created in the media, correct? The impression has been given that the Serbs are intolerant towards other nationalities and religions. However, the fact is that Serbs have been living peacefully together with several other nationalities including Hungarians, Slovaks, Gypsies, Bulgarians and Romanians. For example, the Hungarians, the second most sizeable minority, are well represented in the government, have their own schools and media outlets. On the other hand, Albanians, the largest Yugoslavian minority, have boycotted last several elections, resulting in their poor representation in the Yugoslav government. This has not only kept Albanians outside the political system, but also helped Milosevic and his party win some very close contested elections.

If the Serbs are such peaceful nation, why did they not sign the "peace agreement"? It is important to ask what is actually in the "peace agreement"? (You can read it yourself at: http://balkanaction.org/pubs/#kia/). On March 18, 1999, the Transnational Foundation (TFF), an independent organization based in Sweden, has published an analysis with the subject "Read the MILITARY Kosovo Agreement!" (http://www.transnational.org/2high.html), which states the following: "The military provisions in the Kosovo Agreement on the table in Paris has nothing to do with peacekeeping. There is simply nothing in it for the Yugoslavs and that is why I am deeply afraid that we are likely to see something very bad happen very soon (this was written before the bombing started)." Dr. Jan Oberg, the head of the TFF's conflict-mitigation team in ex-Yugoslavia since 1991, said the following:

"My hypothesis is simple: this document has been adapted to be acceptable to the Albanian delegates to such an extent that the Yugoslav side-ready to accept the political parts at an earlier stage-now find changed document unacceptable both in terms of political and military aspects. Why this change? Because worst case for the international community would be Yugoslavia saying yes and the Albanians saying no." Later on, he goes on to say the document never even mentioned the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), but called it "Other Forces", therefore making it impossible for KLA to be held accountable for any points of the agreement. KLA is a Kosovar Albanian terrorist organization that has been operating in this area for decades. Its activities have led to the slow "ethnic cleansing of Serbs, beginning in the mid-1970's" (as explained by Benjamin Works, the director of the SIRUS: Strategic Issues Research Institute). For the complete bibliography of atrocities committed by KLA, and other related issues visit www.siri-us.com. The next point of the "agreement" was the following: there would be 30 000 NATO troops which would have complete control of the airspace over Kosovo, and Yugoslavian army would be required to pull out all of its forces (remember that KLA is not bound by this agreement). The NATO troops would also control the entire border of Kosovo (including the part towards Serbia), and the police would have to be disarmed and have only civil police functions. "Conspicuously, the Agreement holds no provisions as to prevent or reduce military activity in neighboring countries such as Macedonia or Albania from where the KLA has operated, trained and received its supplies." The terms of the "agreement" clearly spell out the occupation of Yugoslavia, a sovereign country. It was impossible for the Serb negotiators to sign the "agreement" as no country would ever sign its own freedom away. Even Henry Kissinger stated that he would not have signed the agreement, when interviewed on Crossfire, CNN. It is also noteworthy to say that during negotiations, the opposing parties never had a chance to meet, and openly discuss the issues. They were forced to communicate through mediators. The Kosovo Albanian delegation included a US advisor (Morton Abramowitz) who negotiated with another US mediator (Christopher Hill), a presumed "neutral" party in the negotiations. Does this mean that the Serbs are completely behind Milosevic? First, you must keep in mind, that even though most Serbs were against signing of the Agreement, that still does not mean that they support Milosevic's politics in Kosovo. It is important to distinguish between government and its people, and to remember that the decisions Milosevic made, or will make, do not necessarily reflect the wishes of Serbian people. Therefore, one cannot assume that by bombing a population of one country, one can change the mind of its government.

What is the solution? We hope that these facts are sufficient to show you that the problem is extremely complex, and that there is no easy solution such as bombing. The NATO action has in fact contributed to the escalation of the conflict and has created new tensions between the US and Russia. We believe that the only solution are true negotiations where both sides sit at the same table, in good faith, and openly communicate about their problems and demands.

Serbian students and faculty of Boston University