Bulgaria:
"A Run-Over Pedestrian"

Second-largest circulation 24 Hours noted (4/30): "NATO is in a very awkward position. Bulgaria is a NATO ally, but the Alliance has turned it into a target. The only way for NATO to save face is to provide a 'friend or foe' system. At the beginning of the Gulf War, the United States quickly provided Israel with a Patriot anti-missile system, and Bulgaria doesn't even need that much."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "What Would A Defeat Mean For NATO"
Martin Schmarz opined in the intellectual centrist Lidove noviny (4/30): "Once the war is waged, it must be won. The Alliance has invested too much in the conflict and defeat would deal it a cruel blow.... If the Alliance wins, incidents in which convoys with Albanian refugees, Serb civilians in Surdulica or a house on the outskirts of Sofia were hit would not be forgotten, but at least taken as a price paid for the possibility for hundreds of thousands of people to return to their homes and to live in their homeland.... The Alliance didn't have to start war in Kosovo--in this case it would continue to be faced with criticism for inactivity. Now, amid the conflict, it is faced with another dilemma. It wants to save face and at the same time not to turn domestic public opinion against itself. But the logic of the war is severe: the Alliance can only have the former--or lose both."

"Why Did NATO Sacrifice Albanians?"
Sociologist Jan Keller wrote in leftist Pravo (4/30): "NATO sacrificed them [Kosovo Albanians] three times. The first time, it threw them overboard when it made them captives of Serbians by its poorly-thought-out air attacks.... The second time, NATO sacrificed Kosovo Albanians when it didn't prepare humanitarian centers for waves of refugees that must have been expected. The third time and most shamefully NATO sacrifices Kosovo Albanians right now. Sticking firmly to its ultimata is dearer to this organization than anything else.... Those in the country [Czech Republic] who speak about genocide do in fact nothing for the genocide to end as quickly as possible. Indeed, they would have to acknowledge that the unwelcome activities carried out by Russia or Ukraine can be more effective than the nonsensical bombing of the innocent. However, our advocates of the Atlantic forces would never be capable of swallowing something like this. They would rather continue bombing and patiently count the dead. It is in any case Milosevic who would be held responsible for all those killed outside the plan."

GEORGIA: "NATO Continues Operations, Milosevic Looking For Way Out"
Independent Droni (4/28): "It was mentioned in earlier articles that the Balkan war was to Russia's advantage...since, if NATO were to resolve the Balkan crisis and end the war, then the Alliance would be able to turn its attention eastward and knock on the doors of the former Soviet [republics]. That might be the reason why Russia was increasing tensions by making radical statements [about the war]--statements which would normally be unacceptable for a country that is awaiting foreign assistance all day, every day. However, Chernomyrdin's efforts appear to be yielding some results, as NATO is considering suspending air strikes temporarily in the hope that doing so will bring forward more acceptable proposals from Belgrade."
HUNGARY: "Draskovic: Man Of The Future?"
Right-of-center Napi Magyarorszag had this by contributor Istvan Pataky (4/30): "NATO has won its first tangible political victory with deputy Prime Minister Draskovic's departure from Belgrade power. Whatever form of settlement is to follow the NATO action, Belgrade will need a leader who cooperates with Washington and Western Europe, but at the same time fulfills the need of Serbian masses as well, that is, one who will be accepted in his own country. This is where Vuk Draskovic might be considered.... "A Draskovic acting under Western pressure might perhaps be able to create the peaceful transition which is expected to be long and painful for Yugoslavia."

"Who Has Authorized It?"
Top-circulation Nepszabadsag carried this by novelist and liberal activist Gyorgy Konrad (4/30): "It is a big mistake to bomb human individuals in the name of human rights. In a certain sense, Milosevic has won: he has made NATO similar to himself, dragged it down to his level, and involved it in the game of killing, destruction, and violence."

KAZAKHSTAN: "People Are Dying Again In Yugoslavia"
Independent NTK TV news aired this comment (4/29): "People are dying again in Yugoslavia.... It's difficult to count how many people died in the last month there. More than one million refugees are looking for a new home for themselves. During the next several months, NATO will bring its ground forces to Yugoslavia. The world community has said it could be the start of World War III. Two previous wars also began in the Balkans."

NORWAY: "No Sense For Allies To Give Up Now"
Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik wrote in social democratic Dagsavisen Arbeiderbladet (4/30): "In Kosovo, our goal is to get the Milosevic regime to accept the demands of the international community.... We know it may take some time before we reach this goal. We know that there will be civilian casualties, although Norwegian authorities have stressed the importance of NATO's doing all it can to avoid this. The alternative, however, would be to accept the humanitarian disaster and leave the Kosovar Albanians to their destiny. It would not make any sense for the Alliance to give up now."
"When NATO Attacks Civilian Targets, War Loses Its Moral Basis" Southwestern Norwegian daily Stavanger Aftenblad commented (4/30) "This newspaper has supported NATO's war against Yugoslavia. Yet this support has not been without doubts and reservations.... But for Aftenblad it was decisive that the international community not sit idly and watch Slobodan Milosevic carry out the worst aggression in Europe since World War II. The ethnic cleansing and massacres of the Kosovo-Albanians after the bombing began, revealed abundantly the character of Milosevic and his regime.... At the same time, the war's developments fill us with increasing unease. The bombing strategy has up to now not brought a stop to the aggression nor a military breakthrough.... The alternative is of course a diplomatic solution. NATO should encourage all mediation attempts, preferably with a 24-hour pause in the bombing as a conciliatory signal. But the question remains: Is a lasting peace in the Balkans conceivable with Slobodan Milosevic in power in Belgrade?"

POLAND: "Insolence Rewarded"
Tomasz Wroblewski opined in right-of-center Zycie (4/30): "Not only since the very first day [of the Kosovo conflict] was Moscow against helping the Kosovars who were displaced, raped, and murdered, but is also...supported Belgrade.... This did not hinder NATO countries from issuing an appeal to Russia for continued contribution to the peace process. It did not bar Madeleine Albright from flying to Oslo to be scolded by Russia's Foreign Minister Ivanov. And it does not prevent Clinton from calling Yeltsin to thank him for Chernomyrdin's mission.... Peace in the Balkans might even be worth this whole masquerade if it were not for the fact that once before history has taught us what the consequences of strengthening Russia are."

SPAIN: "And Now...Montenegro"
Conservative ABC opined (4/30): "'What is of greatest importance to us is democracy and opening to the world,' according to Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic, who has declared his government's neutrality in the war with NATO. Understandably, this has not gone down well at all in Belgrade where it is seen as a virtual rebellion and a continual challenge. Djukanovic does not acknowledge the authority of the federal government nor is there a state of war on his republic's territory.... Montenegro is attempting to gain proximity to Europe while rejecting the isolation resulting from radical nationalism." "Lesser Serbia"

Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia judged (4/30): "The result of Milosevic's nationalist campaign has been a tragedy. Slovenia and Croatia have become independent as has Bosnia after being shredded by ethnic cleansing. Milosevic's dream of a Greater Serbia has been reduced to Serbia and Montenegro, now that Macedonia has also become independent. And Montenegro's leadership currently seems to be leaning towards the West. Its president, Milo Djukanovic, recently told a Russian newspaper that he is ready to secede from Yugoslavia if Milosevic remains in power.... In his fanaticism, Milosevic may attempt to respond with a coup d'etat. Ten years after the boss in Belgrade began to dream of a Greater Serbia, if he stops to turn around, he will see that he has been steadily edging backwards towards
an abyss."

TURKEY: "Peace Signs For Kosovo?"
Sami Kohen editorialized in mass-appeal Milliyet (4/30): "Moscow is at the center of gravity regarding diplomatic efforts to end the Kosovo crisis. Russia has been pursuing a consistent policy regarding the conflict--that is why Washington's NATO Summit conveyed a message of support to Moscow's mission via Talbott. Chernomyrdin's goal is t convince each side to agree to a plan that calls for an end to NATO's military operation, withdrawal of Serbian forces, and deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Kosovo, which should also include Russian troops. Such a formula could provide the groundwork for a compromise on a political solution that would also secure the return home of refugees."

MIDDLE EAST

EGYPT:

"Hope Talks Continue"
Pro-government Al-Ahram said (4/29): "The talks between the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State with Russian officials resulted in some progress in activating the Russian initiative on Yugoslavia. The Russian initiative tends to find a compromise between the U.S. and Britain from one side and Belgrade from the other. It proposes the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops from Kosovo, spreading international troops, and securing the safe return of Albanians. These ideas seem to gather the agreement of most countries, including NATO, EU and Arab and Islamic countries. Talks on these matters are usually long and hard, which is why Washington and London insist on continuing the raids and imposing an oil embargo. The U.S. defense department's decision to call the reserve troops indicates a possibility for land intervention. We hope the talks about the Russian initiative continue and the parties reach an acceptable agreement to end war in the Balkans; this war in which the Kosovo Albanians were used as cards and slogans."

ISRAEL:

"Half A War, Half A Victory"
Zvi Bar'el opined in independent Ha'aretz (4/30): "Milosevic is already into the second month of his mighty stand. This is not the kind of championship final that the United States, hoping for another six-day war, had in mind.... If a deal could be signed with Qadhafi....
"Why not also sign a deal with Milosevic? The question is no longer what's good for the refugees, but rather how to save NATO's prestige.... Yes, there is also a military solution, and it's the same solution that worked against Hitler: total war. For now, such a solution is far from reality. So, NATO will continue to revel in its statistics--which teach that for half a war, you get half a victory."
"Whose Truth Is This?"
Arik Bachar wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/30): "For the majority of Yugoslavs, there is only one truth--it is wholly thei own. This people reminds one of Israelis--a long history laden wit suffering and persecutions against a religious background. The language spoken by many Serbs in regard to the Albanians reminds one of the Israeli lingo about the Arabs.... On the scale of territorial concessions, as experienced by Israelis, starting with the Sinai beaches and ending with Jerusalem, surrendering Kosovo is maybe one degree lower than Jerusalem."

EAST ASIA

AUSTRALIA: "Even A Ground War Would Not Help NATO Win"
The Australian capital's liberal Canberra Times (4/30) carried a commentary by Nicholas Stuart: "NATO began its war in the Balkans with the avowed intention of protecting the Kosovars from President Milosevic's purge. If this remains the objective, then NATO has lost its first and only war. By now, it is quite clear that Milosevic could endure the bombing into the next millennium if necessary.... Any deployment of ground forces could be just as problematic as the air war thus far.... NATO countries would not be prepared to accept the loss of life that such an operation would entail, let alone the political difficulty that would accompany such an invasion.... It's difficult not to conclude that the Alliance has few options and that none of them would be palatable to the leaders who have become so identified with the fighting--leaders such as Clinton and Blair."
INDONESIA: "Yugoslavia Begins To Waver?"
Ruling Golkar Party's Suara Karya attested (4/30): "In military terms, NATO has reduced Yugoslav capabilities.... At a glance, we note some divisions among Yugoslav leaders. Deputy Prime Minister Draskovic accused Milosevic of lying to the public when he said that Russia is militarily involved. Draskovic also said that Yugoslavia would accept the presence of UN troops in Kosovo. These statements are a rebellion against Milosevic.... Under pressure from NATO strikes and Russian persuasion to accept third party troops in Kosovo, Milosevic may be using Saddam Hussein's tactic. He pretends to relent only to buy time. Time is NATO's biggest enemy. The longer the crisis runs, the more costs NATO must bear.... Perhaps that is Milosevic's tactic."

PHILIPPINES: "Collateral Damage"
Julius Fortuna noted in his column in the government-controlled Journal (4/30): "The destruction of Yugoslavia and the suffering of its people continue.... The refugees are also increasing in Albania and Macedonia.... The big story is the accusation by Serbian authorities that at least 20 people were killed near Belgrade when NATO missed a military target and instead hit a housing area. This is a collateral damage that is to be expected from air strikes. NATO spokesman can say they are trying hard to avoid hitting civilians. But in the nature of this campaign where precision cannot be insured, expect civilians to be hit."

SOUTH KOREA: "The Balkans Still In The Fog"
Lee Dong-jun of the moderate Hankook Ilbo (4/30) observed: "The war in the Balkans, already five-weeks old, remains in the fog. NATO says it is determined to continue and even step up its bombing against Serbia, but the fact of the matter is the military Alliance seems to be deadlocked over military strategy. Meanwhile, Milosevic shows no signs of backing down. It seems that the animosity between NATO and Serbia is just too deep for Russia to cut through and bring a resolution to the whole situation.... Even the Alliance is now trying to step up its diplomatic efforts. The prospect of a diplomatic resolution, however, remains very dim."

"Division In Yugoslavia"
Chae In-take of the business-oriented Joong-Ang Ilbo (4/30) wrote: "Yugoslav Deputy Prime Minister Vuk Draskovic has been fired, apparently indicating that Yugoslavia's ruling group is seriously divided.... It is still too early to know how the anti-government movement led by the deputy prime minister will affect the Kosovo situation, and whether the movement would do something to bring the situation to an end. The deputy prime minister is known to be as nationalistic as President Milosevic."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "Delhi Caught In Balkans Bind"
The centrist Telegraph's Pranay Sharma (4/30): "A Russian
proposal for an emergency UN General Assembly session on Kosovo appears to have been put on hold on India's advice.... Delhi, aware that there might be few backers for Milosevic, advised that the session be shelved for now.... Over the past few weeks, Delhi appears to have reviewed its position for several reasons. One, the United States has lodged a strong protest against the Indian position. Two, the support India was expecting from the developing nations failed to materialize, as was evident from the non-aligned movement declaration. India saw a sharp division in NAM, where the Islamic countries forestalled a strong statement against NATO.... Questions are being raised.... As to why Delhi should take a strong stand. Officially...it is a principled stand and the NATO action threatens the sovereignty of a nation. Delhi is worried that what is happening in Yugoslavia may happen in Kashmir. It is, therefore, caught in a bind on the Balkan developments. Silence might cost India the role of a key global player and support of other countries who want a multi-polar world order. An overtly tough line might force the United States and the Western military Alliance to bring Kashmir back under international focus."

PAKISTAN:

"Kosovo--Requirements For Assistance And Sympathy" Second-largest Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt held (4/30): "The misfortune of the Muslims of Kosovo, Palestine and Kashmir is that America, its puppet the UN, and European countries are not willing to give them due importance, owing to their reservations and prejudice. Non-induction of [NATO] ground troops in Kosovo has given Milosovic a chance to push the Muslims out [of Kosovo].... UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is more concerned about the population of Yugoslavia, a NATO target, than Muslim refugees in Albania. In Palestine, Israel creates hurdles to an independent state in violation of the Oslo pact, while the guarantors of the pact, America and the UN, look on silently. As far as atrocities perpetrated against Muslims of Kashmir are concerned, no one even takes notice of that."

AFRICA

SOUTH AFRICA: "No Crack In Yugoslav Wall"
Afrikaans, centrist Die Burger held (4/29): "At first glance one could reckon that the first crack in the Yugoslav wall begins to appear.... In reality Draskovic should not be taken seriously for a number of reasons. Firstly he is the leader of a very weak opposition party.... Therefore he is not in a position to speak on behalf of the majority of Yugoslavians... He is also an extremely emotional politician.... Finally he...is an extremist Serb nationalist. His aim is to restore the Serb controlled Yugoslavian monarchy of before World War II. Given that the other minorities...would never accept such a situation, Draskovic can only reach his aim through war. Who therefore is worse, Milosevic or Draskovic? No, with regard to the current war, there is no fundamental difference between the two.... There is no rift in the Serbs power establishment."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

MEXICO: "Crisis In The Balkans"
Nationalist, pro-government Excelsior commented (4/29): "NATO has boosted the propaganda campaign around the firing of Yugoslavia's Vice Premier Vuk Draskovic by President Milosevic saying it is a sign that unity around the Yugoslav president is deteriorating. After five weeks of air attacks, NATO has not achieved the surrender of Belgrade. Nevertheless, Milosevic's stubbornness has reached its goal: to expe all Albanians from Kosovo. The crisis in the Balkans is not near an end, quite the contrary, there are increasing protests around the world against NATO's bombings. The alleged cracks in the Serb leadership is not as serious as the propaganda wants people to believe. Nevertheless, Yugoslavia is suffering great losses and it will a long time and very costly to restore its economic potential."
"Intervention"
Juan Maria Alponte wrote in nationalist, pro-government Excelsior (4/29): "The 19 member nations of NATO have ratified the right to intervene militarily on behalf of human rights. Even the pope has ratified such a right. The end of this century is seeing the beginning of a new era--without the United Nations. Nobody can be deceive It is a brutal and open reality: intervention is the present."

"Disregarding The UN"
Lorenzo Meyer held in independent Reforma (4/29): "In the case of Yugoslavia, the initial and central goal of the military action was not to permit Serb nationalists to carry out an ethnic cleansing in Europe. However, the practical and moral procedures used by NATO are not so clear. NATO has disregarded the United Nations because it cannot dominate the international organization, thus it has proclaimed the right to intervene on behalf of human rights. The facts show that the United States and its Allies seem to be less concerned about the well being of the Albanians and more about imposing their solution to the conflict in the Balkans. The air raids have not succeeded in making the (Milosevic) government fall, but they have indeed caused casualties among the civilians that are supposed to be protected. The question is, in order to save Kosovo and Yugoslavia from an authoritarian regime would they have to be destroyed as it happened in Vietnam? Most of the Yugoslavians and even the Albanians in Kosovo are forced to pay a very high price for NATO's 'humanitarian policy.' Will Kosovo continue to be bombed indefinitely? It is almost certain that NATO will have to do later what it did not want to do sooner: to send the troops to fight the Serbs. The 'new international order' of the 21st century does not seem to have a very promising beginning."
CUBA: "And After The Bombing, What?"
Pary hard-liner Elson Concepcion opined in official CCPCC Granma (4/28): "When the United States planned their aggression against Yugoslavia, they first mounted a propaganda plot and invaded the world with their "truth" about the humanitarian catastrophe, provoked by the drama of the refugees that was a consequence of the so-called ethnic cleansing, and, of course, assigning the whole responsibility to President Slobodan Milosevic. Under these same pretexts, even the governments of the European NATO member countries continue to accept the license that Washington has given itself to destroy a sovereign state like Yugoslavia with their missiles and bombs."