T.R. Reid

From NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia to the recent ruling in the Pinochet case in Britain, a number of developments are currently holding the attention of Europeans.

Washington Post's London correspondent, T.R. Reid was online to answer your questions about development in Europe. Read the transcript.

Washington, DC: What is NATO's goal and how do we extricate ourselves upon achieving that goal?

T.R. Reid: The expressed goal is to stop the murder, by Serbian soldiers, of Albanians in Kosovo. It's a worthy goal to prevent murder, and NATO is convinced there's no other way.
I think a somewhat deeper goal of the exercise is to convince the people of Europe that they have collective responsibility for what happens in their continent, that they can't always rely on the U.S. to straighten things out around rte world. That is, to find a new post-Cold-War role for NATO.

Vienna, VA: The President has outlined a new policy for the country based on defending human rights and stopping ethnic conflicts. Will the US apply the same standard to other conuntries like Turkey (Kurds), Mexico (Native Mexicans), China (Tibet), Russia, Romania (Hungarians), Eritria-Ethiopia, etc.?

Would standard will the US use? Or is this just talk to justify a ill advised negotiating "bluff" by Nato, which was called by the Serbs and has forced NATO to actually implement to preserve credibility?

T.R. Reid: This is a crucial question. If you're willing to bomb Belgrade for violating people's human rights, when do we start bombing Beijing, or Singapore, or Pyongyang?
At least the Europeans have the explanation that Kosovo is a problem in their neighborhood. The U.S. doesn't have that to fall back on, and will therefore have to define some basis for when it starts bombing the world's gangster governments.

Annandale, VA: If the Serbian offensive continues in Kosovo inspite of the NATO air strikes, do you think NATO ground forces will mobilize into Kosovo? Would these forces include Americans? Would it be mostly Italian or British forces? Would the Greek government support such a mobilization?

T.R. Reid: Eventually--maybe not this round, but perhaps by summer--the West is probably going to have to send in ground troops. I think this should be a European responsibility, and I hope America isn't part of it. But the Europeans have proven quite skillful in the past at turning the dirty work over to us.

Annandale, Virginia: Is there any way to talk to Kosovar citizens on the internet?

T.R. Reid: I think there has to be a way. I don't know it, but if you are any good at using Internet search engines (HOTBOT, Yahoo!, Lycos, etc.) you should be able to find a chat location that Kosovars are taking part in. If language is a problem, the Albanian organizations in London almost surely have web sites. I don't have their addresses either, I'm sorry to say, but I think they would be searchable.
Sorry I couldn't help more.

Brooklyn, NY: Why should we care about Kosovo, anyway? Why is it justified to attack Yugoslavia, but to ignore the genocide in Rwanda a few years ago?

T.R. Reid: why do we care about Kosovo, anyway? Personally, I share this view. I'm non-interventionist, and I don't think other countries should butt in.
But in fairness, I have to say those who support the intervention--ok, the bombing--make a compelling case. People are being robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered because of their ethnic background. Children and grandmothers are being murdered. These are innocents. Are we our brothers' keepers? Shouldn't the strong protect the innocent?

Saint Louis MO: What is the basis of China's objection to NATO military intervention, just a generalized dislike of interventionist activity, which they fear might be applied someday to Tibet or Taiwan?

T.R. Reid: China is generally non-interventionist. It may be because, as you suggest, they don't like it when we intervene against them. But it is a good thing.
About 25 years from now, when China is both the richest (in GDP) and strongest country in the world, we can remind them of their non-interventionist traditions. Maybe it will help.

Washington, D.C. : Are Europeans as clueless as Americans seem to be about Kosovo? Do most of them feel strikes are necessary?

T.R. Reid: People in Britain, France, Scandinavia, Spain, etc. would probably have as much trouble finding Kosovo on the map as many Americans would. Over near the Balkan, people probably have a better idea of what Kosovo and Albania mean.

Baltimore, Md.: T.R.,

If the IRA refuses to give up its weapons, how will that effect all the peace efforts in N. Ireland? Couldn't that potentially plunge the North into more violence?

T.R. Reid: One of the amazing things to me about Northern Ireland is that people there are warm, witty, open, and articulate. How come these great people keep on murdering each other? it goes back to ancient grudges and long memories, plus, I think, a kind of cultural belief that forgiving and forgetting is a sign of weakness.
In that situation, any big cache of weapons can prompt violence. As long as the IRA, and the other street armies up there, have hidden guns and bombs, they'll use them now and then.
HOWEVER, I think the IRA will give up its weapons, or start too, anyway, by May of 2000, which is what the Good Friday agreement stands for. The IRA and its political supporters are mad that they are being asked to do this earlier than the agreement says they have to.
(of course, this language in the agreement was a deliberate fudge, just to get everybody to sign on last year)

Washington, D.C.: T.R.,

The Pinochet ruling seemed to get buried among the airstrikes news. But does the decision by the British court indicate he could soon be extradicted to Spain? What is the feeling over there?

T.R. Reid: The Pinochet case has been my story, and I suppose every reporter thinks the story he is covering is really important. But let me just say, yesterday's decision in the Pinochet case is IMPORTANT. It is more important that air raids over Serbia. It gives real teeth to those high-minded (but usually ineffectual) global treaties against evil.
One of the world's most influential courts has ruled that anybody--even a president--who violates one of those human rights treaties can be tried as a criminal in almost any country. That is, dictators who torture their citizens will have nowhere on Earth to hide. That is important.
As for Pinochet, the man is a fighter-- "a warrior," is his self-description. He is convinced he has been wronged by the British, and he'll fight it out here in the courts for years. As he himself predicted recently, it's quite likely he'll be fighting legal battles here 'til the day he dies.

Baltimore MD: It appears that the UK is 180 degrees from Japan when it come to using military power. What causes this great difference.

T.R. Reid: The simple answer: Britain won its last war, and Japan lost. The Japanese so badly wrecked their own country with their mindless war in East Asia and the Pacific that they decided, simply, never again. And as long as there are Japanese people alive who remember WW II or its horrible aftermath, they'll stay out of war.
Britain is a different culture. The big public thoroughfares here are lined with statues of great military heroes. Some of the people the British have chosen to honor in their public squares seem to me to be bloodthirsty killers--e.g., Lord Kitchener. But those folks are heroes here. War is still something to be proud of in Britain, and that's just not true in Japan.

Arlington, VA: How much clout does the U.S. carry in NATO? In other words, if a country has enough pull, can they pressure other countries into agreeing to a course of military action?

T.R. Reid: U.S. has all the clout in NATO it will ever need. It is hard to think of NATO ever taking any major step that the US opposed. It is slightly more possible that NATO might not do something the US wants to do, but that's unlikely as well.
Of course the European members would choke if they read this, but the U.S. has control of NATO.

Washington DC: If you say the Pinochet ruling means that murderous dictators have no place to hide, how do you explain a non-interventionist policy toward Milosevic? To me, non-intervention allows Milosevic to hide in his own country.

T.R. Reid: Yes, your point is a good one. Bloody dictators can hide in their own country. As long as the country is willing to put up with them.
But a lot of murderous dictators get overthrown, and then they scuttle off to the Riviera or someplace and put in a call to the Swiss bank and live out their lives. Now they can't do that.
If the killer's own country will take him in, he's safe. Otherwise, no place to hide.

Cowley, Wyoming: I'm assuming that Kosovo used to be a tiny kingdom. Is there a royal family hiding out somewhere?

T.R. Reid: I just want to point out here that I am based in London. I cover the north and western edges of Europe. Kosovo is not my beat. And with that prelude, I can tell you that I don't have the foggiest idea as to whether there is a Kosovarian royal family.
As you know, the place kind of looks like south central Wyoming. But it has a bigger population.

Anderson, Indiana: How seriously are the people of Wales and Scotland taking the current government's plans for devolution? Are the pressures there such that one might anticipate the UK breaking into essentially autonomous regions?

T.R. Reid: This question of "devolution"--of breaking up the United Kingdom into fairly autonomous parts like Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland--is mystifiying to me. Do they really want to break up their country?
My guess is that most Britons haven't thought about it much, because it has not seemed a real prospect. But with the local elections in Wales and Scotland this May, things could get closer to some degree of break-up. At that point, I would guess people in England, Wales, and Scotland would say: Hey, wait a minute, mate. We don't really want to split up.
I talked to a key policy maker for the Scottish National Party. He's George Reid, no doubt an ancient relative of mine. His basic thesis is, Scotland should take all that money from the North Sea oil wells and leave the U.K. It would then be sort of a Brunei-like oil principality, rich and pampered. I personally don't think this will work, and I suspect most Scots don't but the theory, either.

Washingtonpost.com: We're roughly half-way through this live discussion with the Post's London correspondent, T.R. Reid. Submit questions using the hyperlink below.

Washingtonpost.com: We're roughly half-way through this live discussion with the Post's London correspondent, T.R. Reid. Submit questions using the hyperlink below.

Vienna, VA: The new policy towards dictators appears more just, but will it mean that these dictators will go down only with additional fighting and loss of life?

T.R. Reid: The dictator has to make a choice now: She can rule in accordance with int'l. law, and have nothing to worry about. Or she can kill and torture people-- and then she has to figure out how to avoid being put on trial somewhere. The safest way would be for the dictator to remain in her home country forever, never traveling. But for that to be safe, she has to have reasonably decent support in her home country. So she'd better not torture people.
Therefore, I think the new approach is salutory. Whenever any dictator gives the order: "Kill him!" or "Torture him!", she'll now have to think, "Well, if I ever want to go to London, I could be sorry for this."

Washington: Hi! I have not been keeping up with the news in detail, but I have heard that Milsovic is likened to Hitler. How bad is it? It seems that some people don't mind and they are even standing with him in light of the air attacks. How can they not overthrow such a dictator? Why do they let him stay?

T.R. Reid: I'm a little cynical when I see those comparisons to Hitler. Everybody we bomb is compared to Hitler.
The reason dictators--or, at least, politically adept dictators-- can stay in office is they constantly balance their friends and enemies. They do a lot favors for the rich and the powerful. They shower the Army with pay raises, medals, and new weapons. Their friends then have an incentive to keep them in power.

Laurel, Md.: On a scale from 1 to 10 (ten being the best), how would you rate Clinton's foreign policy in Europe? As it applies to the Balkans, N. Ireland, etc.

T.R. Reid: Europeans see the U.S. as the world's richest, freeest, and strongest country. That's not a bad image. I'm willing to give Clinton the credit, because if things were going badly for us, I'd certainly give him the blame.
Clinton has been a strong force for peace in Northern ireland. Unlike other presidents, he has gotten the unionists/protestants to trust him (sort of). And he has adroitly played on Gerry Adams' love of the limelight to get cooperation from Sinn Fein. And, he sent George Mitchell over. So I give him high marks on Northern Ireland.

West Palm Beach, FL: Was the UN unfairly left out in making the decision to strike Kosovo?

T.R. Reid: The UN is pretty hopeless when it comes to decisive action. It was set up to be that way in 1945. It still is. And since there has been no change in the UN structure since '45 (while the world has been changing pretty drastically), it is irrelevant to a lot of contemporary problems.
Don't get me started on the U.N. It could and should be a strong force for good, but those who got power in the organization 50 years ago are not willing to change it.

Arlington, VA.: Did European leaders do as bad as job as our leaders did of prepping the public for airstrikes? Here it seemed pathetic.

T.R. Reid: Yes, European leaders did a bad job of warning people that a major war was coming. (Here in the UK, the newspapers are all describing the current attacks as the "largest military action in Europe since 1945.)
And I can't blame the people for failing to pay attention. It seems like we threaten somebody or other with bombing raids every two weeks. I think until we saw the scope of the thing, this looked like one more false alarm.

Washington, D.C.: Konnichi-wa, TR-san!

As Northern Ireland millimeters closer to peace, the nonsectarian policies of the province's major parties deserve media scrutiny, don't you think?

The last I heard, Sinn Fein was striving for a united, SOCIALIST Ireland. Is that still the case?

And what does the UUP think about the European Union?

T.R. Reid: the actual political policies of the parties in Northern Ireland are interesting.
For one thing, they are all much more liberal on social and economic issues than the major American parties. Every N.I. party supports the nationalized health service, opposes the death penalty, etc.
Sinn Fein was founded as a Socialist party, and its written goals today call for a united Socialit Ireland. at the party conventions, a lot of the delegates still call each ther "comrade." They sell Che Guevara posters.

Seattle, WA: What's going on with the dissolution of the House of Lords? Will Blair really get rid of it before a replacement is decided upon?

T.R. Reid: Yes, I think prime minister Tony Blair will pass his legislation to eliminate the hereditary seats in the House of Lords. And it's long overdue, isn't it? here's a genuinely democratic, free country, and they have 700 members of the legislature who got their not through election, but by birth (!) And these people have some power over legislation.
Blair told the British people in '97 that he was going to eliminate the hereditary Lords, and he won the election by a huge margin. So I can't figure out why he has waited so long to dump those guys.

Baltimore Maryland: I heard a report that German troops have been deployed as part of the NATO offensive in Kosovo and that this is the first such deployment since WW II. Where are these troops and how has this been recieved in Europe?

T.R. Reid: FOLKS, thanks so much for your questions. It's after 7:00 pm here in London and I have to make dinner for my family at this point.
Please keep reading foreign news. We need you.
--best, tom reid

Washingtonpost.com: Well, that's all the time we have. Thanks to everyone who participated and thanks to T.R. Reid, who joined us live from London.