COMMENTS
361
long-range consequences of the war, not only for NATO, but for the
European Union and the value of their new currency, the euro. They
told of brothers and sons of military age who were advised not to leave
the country, and wondered by what criteria men would be selected. (I
was grateful no one pointed out that America was supplying all the
equipment while promising "not to lose American lives.") I was struck,
also, by the heated way they argued, wi thout a trace of the poli tical cor–
rectness that in the U.S. now squelches serious, honest disagreements
among people of different party affiliations. And there were no
ad
hominem
attacks, ei ther.
Eugenio Scalfari, the founder of
LA Repubblica,
began his May 23 edi–
torial with a comparison to the
film
The Colors oj Victory,
and went on to
state: "Clinton has started a war with a country that is a flea compared to
the American lion, and for that very reason it can escape its paws." Yet
Clinton must win "because that is his moral objective.... [His] victory, like
that of the film's president, must be achieved at any cost, and requires
Milosevic's defeat," Scalfari continued somewhat snidely.
President Clinton's editorial in the
International Herald Tribune
on the
following day, though emphasizing our humanitarian mission to end "eth–
nic cleansing" and get the Kosovar refugees back home, essentially agreed.
But he emphasized that Milosevic had failed to divide the alliance; that
there was unrest in Serbia; that the air strikes had done much damage; and
that the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army were swelling. (On balance,
the Italian press had mixed reports about the KLA's strength; it agreed that
there was much devastation, but was less certain about the "broad and deep
support in the alliance.")
Scalfari, however, blamed the White House for refusing to negotiate in
order to hold out for a total victory, and pointed out that Milosevic could not
surrender without being condemned by the Human Rights Tribunal. (It
remains to be seen, I believe, whether his latest agreement to NATO terms
is true capitulation or a ploy to gain time.) Scalfari argued that because the
ends of the war have changed from the "moral right" to eliminate ethnic
cleansing, to military intervention guaranteeing the Kosovars' return to their
homes, to imposing the conditions on Milosevic's surrender, any attempts at
settlement must fail. Although Scalfari also placed responsibility on
Milosevic, he was really concerned with what all this meant for Italy. He idly
wondered whether a member country of NATO could pursue an indepen–
dent line of action-without leaving that organization. Since that isn't in the
cards, he suggested that it might at least be useful to fire NATO's press sec–
retary, Janue Shea, who, night after night, according to Scalfari, told
Europeans that "we have had an excellent day, with nine hundred sorties, and
then goes on
to
enumerate the register of victims due to 'collateral error.' "
