Public opinion and domestic politics are coming more into the foreground of international responses to the Kosovo crisis, as leaders assess ways of bringing the war to an end and securing a just settlement of the conflict. Across the 15-member NATO alliance there has been surprising unity over the seven-week bombing campaign, but political attitudes are now diverging on the use of ground troops, a bombing pause and precise terms for a settlement.
In Serbia, a rash of protests accompanied an official statement of readiness to negotiate a deal. Among the Kosovar victims of ethnic cleansing, the realisation that a settlement could stop short of their expectations is causing growing unease.
The NATO bombing campaign has been predicated on assumptions by political leaders that public opinion in its member-States was not strong or deep enough to commit ground troops in order to force a settlement on Serbia. Everything has been done to minimise NATO military casualties and the political obloquy of justifying and being responsible for them. The bombing campaign seemed to offer a risk-free alternative, despite military advice that it cannot in itself guarantee military success.
As a result, there was a gross underestimation of how long President Milosevic would hold out against the bombardment. The brutally effective policy he adopted of expelling one million Kosovars from their homes was quite unforeseen by military and political planners. Their plight has stiffened resolve to see them return to their homes; but mounting civilian casualties from mistaken targeting have also disenchanted public opinion in many NATO States, increasing pressure for a diplomatic settlement. So has the alienation of Russia and China by NATO's unilateral action, taken without express Security Council approval.
The elements of a settlement are, therefore, coming more clearly into view, driven in large part by public opinion. In the United States, support for the bombing campaign is down in the latest opinion polls. Nearly half of the respondents support a halt to allow a Serb withdrawal from Kosovo and many more want to see NATO negotiate with Serbia on terms rather than require it to accept them. President Clinton now says options must remain open on using troops, but he has been extraordinarily concerned to minimise casualties and is clearly not ready to lead public opinion towards using them, or to prepare contingency forces, as the British Government is once more demanding.
The Italian and German governments have come under growing public pressure to seek a diplomatic settlement. Their attitudes have converged around a formula that would see a Security Council resolution put in place with active Russian involvement and passive approval by China, then a halt to the bombing while awaiting Serbian compliance with the threat of troops if it refuses to do so. Details are contested, especially concerning the wisdom of a bombing pause, the extent of Serb withdrawal, the nature of an international force to protect returning refugees and the shape of a political settlement. But there can be little doubt that all these elements will be involved. Diplomacy must be intensified to put them properly in place, since there is neither the public support nor the political will for a prolonged war.