Cost of peace
Whatever the upshot of current efforts to seek a lasting peace in the Balkans, it will take years and expenditures of billions of dollars to restore that troubled area.
One recalls the book The Mouse That Roared, a tale of a tiny European nation that declared war on the United States. The rationale for this pugnacious act was that whenever the U.S. goes to war and wins, it then rebuilds the economy of the vanquished nation. Since the country was broke, it felt it had nothing to lose.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
In Kosovo the United States has seen to it that member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have a share of the responsibility. So, when a mangled and battered Yugoslavia seeks restoration, undoubtedly the resources of western Europe and Canada will be brought into play.
Canadians have a particular interest because it was a Canadian who sold the idea of NATO in the first place. I heard some ill-informed radio commentator recently give Lester Pearson credit. Pearson did some useful things but the main pusher for a post-war military force to keep the peace was Louis St. Laurent.
We should regard the cost of sending CF-18s and 800 ground soldiers as a down payment. Then comes the cleanup, but don’t regard it as money down the drain.
The goal of peace in the world, when resources can be focused on building rather than destroying, is a worthy one.
Some argue that blasting a country’s infrastructure to bits isn’t the best way to achieve peace.
However, 19 years of negotiation, intrigue and recurrent bloody battles since the death of Josef Broz Tito suggests finger-waving will not resolve this factional feud.
