Serious human rights violations are being tolerated in Kosovo in favor of short-term geopolitical interests in the Balkans.
Serbian police and the Yugoslav army have launched their largest offensives to date against the ethnic Albanian insurgency. They appear to have used disproportionate force, attacking civilians and systematically destroying villages. At least 100,000 people are internally displaced, many hiding in canyons and forests, and 20,000 have fled the region altogether.
Despite this, NATO is now further from taking action than it was a few months ago. The U.S. government has expressed only mild criticism, mostly because the Kosovo Liberation Army has become an annoying threat that it could not control.
Diplomats in Kosovo are telling journalists that the West has turned a blind eye to the abuses in order to force the KLA to the negotiating table.
The U.S. position is presented by Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who recently said that NATO "does not want to see" Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's troops attacking civilians or using disproportionate force, but also does not want to take action that "could be construed as lending support, either moral or military, to those seeking independence."
Such a position spells disaster for the people in Kosovo and the region. Mr. Milosevic's troops are committing serious abuses, and there is no indication that the atrocities will stop.
Human rights groups name five villages where summary executions have taken place since February. Hundreds of people have been arrested and abused; many villages have been destroyed. Many civilians must have died from indiscriminate artillery fire.
Where is the threshold? At what point will the Clinton administration decide that it has seen enough?
Understandably, Washington is concerned about the destabilizing effects that an independent Kosovo might have on neighboring Macedonia, with its sizable ethnic Albanian population, and on the fragile peace in Bosnia, where 20,000 U.S. soldiers are still on the ground. But unchecked atrocities, and the predictable KLA response, will feed a refugee outflow that could ignite an increasingly radical Albanian community in Macedonia.
Washington is missing the fundamental point that there will be no stability in the Balkans as long as Mr. Milosevic stays in power.
Despite past atrocities in Croatia and Bosnia, American officials still regard him as the man who can stop the fighting. The "man with the reins" argument was used by Richard Holbrooke when Mr. Milosevic signed the 1995 Dayton accords, which stopped the fighting in Bosnia. But the international community's failure to punish Mr. Milosevic for crimes in Croatia and Bosnia sent the message that he would be allowed to get away with such crimes again.
The man who started these conflicts cannot be trusted to stop them. There will be no lasting peace as long as Yugoslavia remains an undemocratic state with Mr. Milosevic at the helm.
Even if the Albanians agree to autonomy, as the U.S. government is pressing them to do, there is no guarantee that Mr. Milosevic would end his repressive rule in Kosovo, or that he would not again revoke Kosovo's status at some point in the future. An abusive government in Belgrade will be a constant threat to the region.
The first priority for U.S. policy should be his indictment.
A second is continued cultivation of democratic alternatives within Serbia and Montenegro, with an emphasis on building institutions like independent courts and depoliticized police. Independent media should be supported.
All options for Kosovo's political status should be considered, as long as they include guarantees for the rights of both Albanians and Serbs.
Admittedly, strong action against Mr. Milosevic is a bad message to send to armed insurgencies with separatist agendas around the world. But equally bad is the current message to Mr. Milosevic and other aggressive dictators that their violence will be tolerated by the international community in the name of territorial integrity.
