Letter: After the war
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I recently returned from a non-Nato meeting in Washington on the future of the Balkans at which the speakers included the Presidents of Bulgaria and Albania, the foreign ministers of Romania, Croatia and Bosnia and a representative of the Montenegrin government. While the governments of all Yugoslavia's neighbours supported Nato action, even if many of their people do not, they are extremely worried about the future.
Three things particularly need stressing. The first is the heavy economic cost of the war to countries already very poor by European standards. This is not only due to the influx of refugees but, far more widely, to such factors as the closing of the Danube, particularly serious for Romania.
The second is the consequent need for a strategic post-war "Marshall Plan" for the Balkans as a whole to fight poverty and integrate their economies into Europe. This can only be managed by the European Union. It is however generally recognised that any such hope is illusory if Serbia, at the heart of the Balkans, continues to be ruled by Milosevic.
The third is that all these governments are trying hard to integrate their own ethnic minorities politically, but every time ethnic cleansing is allowed to succeed in one place (as is still the case in post-Dayton Bosnia) it encourages repeats elsewhere.
The conclusion is clear: any sort of "compromise" which leaves Milosevic with a plausible claim to have "won" (such as division of Kosovo would signify) could be disastrous, not only for Kosovo but for the future of all Serbia's neighbours.
Professor ADRIAN HASTINGS
Leeds
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments