Kosovo Crossing: The Reality of American Intervention in the Balkans

An expansion of a March Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, this effort suffers from the speed with which it was crashed into print (see Hot Deals, Apr. 19). Fromkin, chairman of Boston University's international relations department and author, most recently, of The Way of the World, ultimately, if timidly, defends NATO's bombing war against Yugoslavia. After rapid recaps of American military intervention abroad since WWI and of Balkan history, Fromkin finally addresses the current Kosovo conflict. While he concedes there was no direct vital U.S. interest at stake in Kosovo, he argues that ""there was a good case to be made that the risks [of intervention] were worth running."" That case involves hearkening back to Wilson's 14 Points, which, Fromkin observes, affirmed two contradictory principles: the right of nations to self-determination, and the inviolability of national borders. The Kosovars wanted to determine their own fate, but their insistence on independence violated the sanctity of Yugoslavia's borders. Fromkin sees Clinton and NATO policy (trying to reverse Serbia's ethnic cleansing while stopping short of supporting independence for Kosovo) as a good faith effort to negotiate the tension inherent in Wilson's principles. Warily, he endorses an expanded role for the United States as global supercop, ""trustee and guardian"" of Kosovo for years to come, even while he warns against overextension of resources. As a brief outline of the thinking that drew NATO and the U.S. into Kosovo, Fromkin's primer is instructive. As a piece of thinking about the limits of intervention and the perils--or promise--of a foreign policy rooted in Wilsonian idealism, it leaves much to be desired. Maps not seen by PW. Agent, Suzanne Gluck; author tour. (Aug.)