[FAIR-L] ACTION ALERT: WAS A PEACEFUL KOSOVO SOLUTION REJECTED BYU.S.?]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------DC22AD9E6B9CDE9BF79B733C



--------------DC22AD9E6B9CDE9BF79B733C

Return-Path: <owner-fair-l@AMERICAN.EDU>
Delivered-To: foisy@toolbox.total.net
Delivered-To: alias-foisy@TOTAL.NET
	id 3DF9411807; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:14:30 -0400 (EDT)
Approved-By: FAIR-L@USA.NET
Delivered-To: fair-l@listserv.american.edu
          -0400 (EDT)
          UAA04661 for fair-l@listserv.american.edu; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:06:48
          -0400 (EDT)
          -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID:  <7838.990414@usa.net>
Date:         Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:07:14 -0400
Reply-To: fair-l-request@AMERICAN.EDU
Sender: "media analysis, critiques and news reports" <FAIR-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
From: FAIR <FAIR-L@USA.NET>
Subject:      [FAIR-L] ACTION ALERT: WAS A PEACEFUL KOSOVO SOLUTION REJECTED BY
              U.S.?
To: FAIR-L@AMERICAN.EDU


                                 FAIR-L
                    Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
               Media analysis, critiques and news reports




 ACTION ALERT: WAS A PEACEFUL KOSOVO SOLUTION REJECTED BY U.S.?

 April 14, 1999

 Since the beginning of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the war has been
 presented by the media as the consequence of Yugoslavia's stubborn
 refusal to settle for any reasonable peace plan, in particular its
 rejection of plans for an international security force to implement a
 peace plan in Kosovo.

 An article in the April 14 New York Times stated that Yugoslavian
 President Milosevic "has absolutely refused to entertain an outside
 force in Kosovo, arguing that the province is sovereign territory of
 Serbia and Yugoslavia."

 Negotiations between the Serb and Albanian delegations at the
 Rambouillet meeting in France ended with Yugoslavia's rejection of the
 agreement adopted, after much prodding, by the Albanian party.

 But is that the whole story? On February 21, the Yugoslavs assented to
 the terms of the political portion of the Rambouillet agreement. Their
 rejection stemmed from their opposition to the requirement that 28,000
 NATO troops be stationed in Kosovo to oversee the implementation of
 the accord. This military clause, requiring NATO troops, was inserted
 without the knowledge of the Russian representatives, who opposed the
 provision.

 By the  close of the first round of the Rambouillet talks in late
 February, Serb President Milan Milutinovic had already declared
 Serbia's willingness to to discuss "an international presence in
 Kosovo" to monitor the implementation of the accords. On February 21,
 Madeleine Albright responded by insisting that "We accept nothing less
 than a complete agreement, including a NATO-led force."

 On March 23, the day before the NATO bombing began, the Serbian
 parliament adopted a resolution again rejecting the military portion
 of the accords, but expressing willingness to review the "range and
 character of an international presence" in Kosovo. According to the
 Toronto Star's correspondent in Belgrade on March 24, "There have been
 hints Serbia might ultimately accept a U.N. force."

 But the U.S. appears to have been unwilling to consider any option
 other than NATO troops. At a March 24 State Department press briefing,
 spokesman James Rubin was asked about this development:

 QUESTION: Was there any follow-up to the Serbian Assembly's yesterday?
 They had a two-pronged decision. One was to not allow NATO troops to
 come in; but the second part was to say they would consider an
 international force if all of the Kosovo ethnic groups agreed to some
 kind of a peace plan. It was an ambiguous collection of resolutions.
 Did anybody try to pursue that and find out what was the meaning of
 that?

 MR.  RUBIN:  Ambassador Holbrooke was in Belgrade, discussed these
 matters extensively with President Milosevic, left with the conclusion
 that he was not prepared to engage seriously on the two relevant
 subjects. I think the decision of the  Serb Parliament  opposing
 military-led implementation was the message that most people received
 from the parliamentary debate. I'm not aware that people saw any
 silver linings.

 QUESTION: But there was a second message, as well; there was a second
 resolution.

 MR. RUBIN:  I am aware that there was work done, but I'm not aware
 that anybody in this building regarded it as a silver lining.

 In other words, the State Department was aware that the Serbian
 parliament expressed openness to an "international presence," but this
 was not seen as a "silver lining," apparently because only a NATO
 force was acceptable to the U.S.

 Those who support the bombing of Yugoslavia argue that all peaceful
 options for arriving at a settlement in Kosovo had been exhausted.
 Journalists need to do more reporting on the Rambouillet process to
 see if that in fact was the case.

 ***

 ACTION: Please contact local and national media and call on them to
 report on the U.S. State Department's insistence that only a NATO-led
 force in Kosovo could keep the peace there.  Did this position make it
 more or less likely that the rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo
 would be protected?

 You can contact the New York Times at:

 Andrew Rosenthal-- Foreign Editor
 mailto:letters@nytimes.com; andyr@nytimes.com

 Contact information for other media outlets can be found at:
 http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html

 For more information on media coverage of the war in Yugoslavia, see
 http://www.fair.org/international/yugoslavia.html .



                               ----------


Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the
'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.

Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
responses, to us at: fair@fair.org .

Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.

Don't miss a single email from FAIR-L.
To subscribe to FAIR-L send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.

The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about
spammers.


You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L"
command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.

Please support FAIR by becoming a member.
You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA!
Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to
5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information
on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to:

                    FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service
                              P.O. Box 170
                         Congers, NY 10920-9930


                                  FAIR
                             (212) 633-6700
                          http://www.fair.org/
                          E-mail: fair@fair.org

list administrators: FAIR-L-request@american.edu





--------------DC22AD9E6B9CDE9BF79B733C--