Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
NATO troops were (also) a NATO demand,

Yes, because Albright took up Thaci's demand. After the Serbian side said they agree and Thaci said they don't, Albright changed the text. This wasn't a single example of Albright (wittingly or unwittingly) playing for war during the negotiations, consaider also the issue of NATO or civilian peacekeeper leadership.

and that the Serbian counter-proposal was unacceptable even to the Russians.

Which was the end of it. Then as Wiki says, the Serbian Parliament accepted the non-military part of the second version of the Rambouillet proposal, and Wiki goes into details about what Serbia [rest-Yugoslavia] objected to.

The initial target list, I believe, was the substance of much political discussion, with the French and Italians initially blocking much of the targets that the US wanted to bomb

This was more complex. On one hand, the US held some target decisions for itself, which hapened to be the most sensitive: especially those involving stealth planes. On the other hand, they held intel information regarding why they picked targets for themselves. In the end, war by committee wasn't really by committee.

Then again, the "sexed-up dossier" and the "45 minutes claim" of that war didn't came from Britain but Germany. I mean the claims about a pre-planned "Operation Horseshoe" and about torture chambers and concentration camp in Pristina's stadium. So there was cooperation and also in the dark dealings.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The NATO countries had the experience of a failed ceasefire between the parties before, which was observed by OSCE monitors. The Serb's behaviour at the negotiating table also seems to have been unreliable, first coming up with a wildly unrealistic counterproposal set to anger NATO and then ratifying only a part of the accord when NATO said that it was indivisible.

All of this happened within the space of 6 days before the campaign started, as the wiki article seems to suggest. So the narrative that the Serbs compromised almost completely but their enemy was bent on war (mimicking the WWI narrative) doesn't hold up. Once you have an agreement on a civilian peacekeeping force, you have to negotiate about its size, makeup, rules of engagement, etcetera. So just proposing that you may wish to allow a civilian peacekeeping force isn't much of a step forward to the demand that 30,000 NATO troops are allowed in.

Whether or not there was an operation horseshoe is still uncertain. The actions of the Serbs during the war suggest that something similar existed. Of course, the existence of a plan doesn't necessarily mean that it will be carried out.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 01:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series