The planned NATO mission to Macedonia has awakened a wide range of expectations before it has even begun. It is likely that at least some of these hopes will be disappointed. But the start of a new mission provides an opportunity for the international community to assess its broader agenda in the region.
NATO is preparing for Operation Essential Harvest, the goal of which is to collect and destroy weapons from those members of the National Liberation Army (UCK) willing to surrender them. The alliance is slated to complete the mission in 30 days and then withdraw.
Few observers believe that the mission will be so simple or quick. Macedonian government officials say that they expect that the guerrillas — whom they call “terrorists,” even though the UCK uses guerrilla rather than terrorist tactics — will bury or hide most of their weapons and go back to fighting when they feel the time is ripe. The UCK fighters, for their part, stress that they do not know who will protect Albanian civilians from vengeful Macedonian security forces once the weapons are destroyed and NATO is gone. Finally, the alliance maintains that it is interested only in carrying out Essential Harvest and leaving, and not in dealing with any wider agenda.
But all these doubts aside, everyone concerned seems anxious for Essential Harvest to get started. Some of the Macedonian government leaders — perhaps with a view to the January 2002 elections — frequently criticize NATO and especially the U.S., but at the same time they welcome the NATO presence. Their goal is to have on the ground what President Boris Trajkovski’s spokesman has called a “heavy presence” by members of the international community, including the OSCE and EU as well as NATO. Skopje feels that a large foreign presence is the ethnic Macedonians’ best insurance against a revival of hostilities by the UCK. Should the guerrillas again resort to violence, this reasoning goes, the foreigners will be on hand and in a position to stop the UCK.
The guerrillas and the two ethnic Albanian political parties represented in the four-party governing coalition likewise view the NATO presence as an insurance policy against the other side’s possible misbehavior. If NATO is on the ground, the Albanians argue, the Macedonian security forces will not dare take revenge on ethnic Albanian communities. And the UCK is probably counting on NATO to provide a physical buffer to ensure that government forces stay out of many of the territories that the guerrillas have captured.
Whether or not NATO will oblige them remains to be seen. It is hard, moreover, to see how NATO can meet either side’s expectations if its troops stay for only 30 days. But NATO officials seem concerned to get their forces in place as soon as possible before the recent isolated cease-fire violations become any worse. In the meantime, the Western troops will begin collecting those weapons that the UCK decides to surrender.
It is therefore not too difficult to imagine that NATO will be put under pressures to extend or expand its mission even before Essential Harvest has begun. The most commonly voiced criticism of the mission — from the region and also from the media in many NATO countries — is that the 30-day time framework is too short.
Other observers add that NATO cannot expect to carry out a purely military mission. The alliance must also plan on playing a civilian role, because it is unrealistic to expect the two sides to work together without an “honest broker” to help things along. According to this reasoning, NATO should plan on having at least some political role for itself from the very start — before the alliance is forced by the pressure of events on the ground to assume such a role.
Some observers add that this might also be an opportunity for the international community — which in effect means NATO and the EU — to rethink what its goals are in the region as a whole. The jury remains out as to how effective a role outsiders can play in Balkan nation-building or even in promoting civil societies. In the last analysis, it will be the task of the peoples of the region alone to achieve political stability, overcome or neutralize deeply rooted mistrust and hatreds, and build political cultures that go beyond conspiracy theories, parties based on charismatic leaders rather than programs, and a view that public office is primarily a source of enrichment.
There are probably two things that the wealthy and powerful international community can do to help bring about peace and stability. First, it can promote job creation and prosperity so that people have a productive outlet for their energies and a chance to build a better life. One should not forget that demagogues rose to power and wars began in the former Yugoslavia only after a decade of economic downturn. People who feel they have something to lose will not have much of a stomach for fighting. One factor in preventing the recent Macedonian conflict from getting totally out of hand seems to have been precisely that too many people felt they had too much to lose if it did.
A second thing that the foreigners can do is to maintain some form of effective, long-term military presence. This, its proponents argue, will reassure peaceful citizens and foreign investors, and will provide a deterrent to those tempted to cause mischief. Such a military presence will need to include at least some U.S. forces to be effective. The Americans are the only foreigners whom the ethnic Albanians of the region truly trust, and the foreigners whom potential troublemakers of any ethnic background are likely to take most seriously.
