I believe the United Nations have opposed the NATO campaign. What is
interesting is that NATO has deployed human rights as a vehicle for war.
This is not to ignore the serious human rights breaches by the Serbian
regime. Didn't the US also deploy human rights as a reason for their
continued intervention in Iraq. I must say, though, I do not understand the
continued existence of NATO which was intially set up as a defensive pact
against the Soviet Union and its east European satellites.
At 14:26 15/04/99 EDT, you wrote:
>The Nation, April 26, 1999
>
> The Case Against Inaction
>
> Sadly, some on the left are angrier about NATO's bombing
> than they are about the Serbian forces' atrocities, even though
> Milosevic's men have killed more in one Kosovan village than
> have all the airstrikes. Those who want an immediate NATO
> cease-fire owe the world an explanation of how they propose
> to stop and reverse the massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, in
> light of Milosevic's history as a serial ethnic cleanser and
> promise-breaker. Arguments that the NATO action diminishes
> the stature of the United Nations are, to say the least, highly
> questionable. What could diminish the UN's stature more than
> Milosevic's successful defiance of more than fifty Security
> Council resolutions? Only last September, Resolution 1199,
> invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, ordered Belgrade to
> "cease all action by the security forces affecting the civilian
> population and order the withdrawal of security units used for
> civilian repression" in Kosovo. Only last October, Milosevic
> promised to reduce troop numbers in Kosovo, and his pledge
> was endorsed and given the force of international law by
> Security Council Resolution 1203. By the time the
> Rambouillet negotiations had started, he had more troops in
> Kosovo than ever before, and they had already begun their
> well-prepared campaign of ethnic cleansing.
>
> Real internationalists can hardly use the dubious rights of
> "national sovereignty" to oppose action to stop massacres.
> Opposition to US military intervention is an understandable
> rule of thumb, but it shouldn't become obsessive dogma. After
> all, most Europeans were happy with US intervention in
> World War II. The British court decisions on Gen. Augusto
> Pinochet show that, at last, politicians who murder cannot
> expect amnesty afterwards. Why should Slobodan Milosevic
> expect impunity as he carries out crimes against humanity?
>
> Ideally, there should have been a UN Security Council vote
> endorsing military action, but China and Russia had made it
> plain that no matter what barbarities Milosevic committed
> they would veto any such resolution. Happily, most of the
> Council agreed that ethnic cleansing was not something that
> could be shielded behind a dubious claim of national
> sovereignty and soundly defeated, 12 votes to 3, a Russian
> draft resolution condemning the bombing. Only Namibia
> joined Beijing and Moscow. NATO, most of whose
> governments are members of the Socialist International,
> agreed on a military response.
>
> In short, the court of international public opinion has
> implicitly, resoundingly, endorsed military action. Milosevic
> is clearly counting on past experience that the international
> community will compromise, accept the results of ethnic
> cleansing and leave him in power. We hope that this time he
> has miscalculated. Three of the major European
> players--Britain, France and Germany--under like-minded
> left-of-center governments have united in their determination
> to stop him, and they have popular majorities for doing so.
>
> Soon NATO will be faced with two alternatives: stop the
> bombing and "negotiate," or commit ground troops. The
> bombing should stop only when Belgrade agrees to pull out or
> is pushed out of Kosovo, if necessary by ground troops. For
> most of this decade Milosevic has used negotiations as a cover
> to consolidate the gains of ethnic cleansing.
>
> The precondition for a cease-fire must be the withdrawal of
> Serbian troops and police from Kosovo and their replacement
> by an international force, mostly NATO but including
> Russians if they want to become involved--and can afford to.
> (No one who saw the UN in inaction in Bosnia could wish UN
> forces on the long-suffering Kosovars.) Of course, the present
> campaign carries risks. To exorcise its frustration and put off
> the inevitable involvement on the ground, the White House
> will be increasingly tempted to escalate attacks on civilian and
> economic targets. The sooner ground troops are committed to
> clear Kosovo of Serbian forces and allow the refugees to
> return, the less temptation there will be, and the more likely
> that Milosevic will withdraw. Successful military action
> would also strengthen the prospects for democracy in Serbia.
> Much of the Serbian opposition argues that airstrikes weaken
> their position. In fact, it would be impossible to weaken their
> position on Kosovo: Even fewer of them explicitly oppose the
> repression there than resisted the war in Bosnia. In reality,
> Serbia cannot have democracy and Kosovo.
>
> There will be casualties, but the Serbian army and police,
> although fearsome against unarmed civilians, will be far from
> home, in hostile territory without air cover. The alternative is
> a terminal weakening of all the precarious advances in
> international humanitarian law that have been achieved over
> the past decade--not to mention the deaths and exile of
> hundreds of thousands of Kosovars.
>
> Bogdan Denitch and Ian Williams
>
> Bogdan Denitch, director of the Institute for Transitions to
> Democracy, which operates in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, is
> the author of Ethnic Nationalism: The Tragic Death of
> Yugoslavia (Minnesota). Ian Williams is The Nation's
> United Nations correspondent.
>
>
>
interesting is that NATO has deployed human rights as a vehicle for war.
This is not to ignore the serious human rights breaches by the Serbian
regime. Didn't the US also deploy human rights as a reason for their
continued intervention in Iraq. I must say, though, I do not understand the
continued existence of NATO which was intially set up as a defensive pact
against the Soviet Union and its east European satellites.
At 14:26 15/04/99 EDT, you wrote:
>The Nation, April 26, 1999
>
> The Case Against Inaction
>
> Sadly, some on the left are angrier about NATO's bombing
> than they are about the Serbian forces' atrocities, even though
> Milosevic's men have killed more in one Kosovan village than
> have all the airstrikes. Those who want an immediate NATO
> cease-fire owe the world an explanation of how they propose
> to stop and reverse the massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, in
> light of Milosevic's history as a serial ethnic cleanser and
> promise-breaker. Arguments that the NATO action diminishes
> the stature of the United Nations are, to say the least, highly
> questionable. What could diminish the UN's stature more than
> Milosevic's successful defiance of more than fifty Security
> Council resolutions? Only last September, Resolution 1199,
> invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, ordered Belgrade to
> "cease all action by the security forces affecting the civilian
> population and order the withdrawal of security units used for
> civilian repression" in Kosovo. Only last October, Milosevic
> promised to reduce troop numbers in Kosovo, and his pledge
> was endorsed and given the force of international law by
> Security Council Resolution 1203. By the time the
> Rambouillet negotiations had started, he had more troops in
> Kosovo than ever before, and they had already begun their
> well-prepared campaign of ethnic cleansing.
>
> Real internationalists can hardly use the dubious rights of
> "national sovereignty" to oppose action to stop massacres.
> Opposition to US military intervention is an understandable
> rule of thumb, but it shouldn't become obsessive dogma. After
> all, most Europeans were happy with US intervention in
> World War II. The British court decisions on Gen. Augusto
> Pinochet show that, at last, politicians who murder cannot
> expect amnesty afterwards. Why should Slobodan Milosevic
> expect impunity as he carries out crimes against humanity?
>
> Ideally, there should have been a UN Security Council vote
> endorsing military action, but China and Russia had made it
> plain that no matter what barbarities Milosevic committed
> they would veto any such resolution. Happily, most of the
> Council agreed that ethnic cleansing was not something that
> could be shielded behind a dubious claim of national
> sovereignty and soundly defeated, 12 votes to 3, a Russian
> draft resolution condemning the bombing. Only Namibia
> joined Beijing and Moscow. NATO, most of whose
> governments are members of the Socialist International,
> agreed on a military response.
>
> In short, the court of international public opinion has
> implicitly, resoundingly, endorsed military action. Milosevic
> is clearly counting on past experience that the international
> community will compromise, accept the results of ethnic
> cleansing and leave him in power. We hope that this time he
> has miscalculated. Three of the major European
> players--Britain, France and Germany--under like-minded
> left-of-center governments have united in their determination
> to stop him, and they have popular majorities for doing so.
>
> Soon NATO will be faced with two alternatives: stop the
> bombing and "negotiate," or commit ground troops. The
> bombing should stop only when Belgrade agrees to pull out or
> is pushed out of Kosovo, if necessary by ground troops. For
> most of this decade Milosevic has used negotiations as a cover
> to consolidate the gains of ethnic cleansing.
>
> The precondition for a cease-fire must be the withdrawal of
> Serbian troops and police from Kosovo and their replacement
> by an international force, mostly NATO but including
> Russians if they want to become involved--and can afford to.
> (No one who saw the UN in inaction in Bosnia could wish UN
> forces on the long-suffering Kosovars.) Of course, the present
> campaign carries risks. To exorcise its frustration and put off
> the inevitable involvement on the ground, the White House
> will be increasingly tempted to escalate attacks on civilian and
> economic targets. The sooner ground troops are committed to
> clear Kosovo of Serbian forces and allow the refugees to
> return, the less temptation there will be, and the more likely
> that Milosevic will withdraw. Successful military action
> would also strengthen the prospects for democracy in Serbia.
> Much of the Serbian opposition argues that airstrikes weaken
> their position. In fact, it would be impossible to weaken their
> position on Kosovo: Even fewer of them explicitly oppose the
> repression there than resisted the war in Bosnia. In reality,
> Serbia cannot have democracy and Kosovo.
>
> There will be casualties, but the Serbian army and police,
> although fearsome against unarmed civilians, will be far from
> home, in hostile territory without air cover. The alternative is
> a terminal weakening of all the precarious advances in
> international humanitarian law that have been achieved over
> the past decade--not to mention the deaths and exile of
> hundreds of thousands of Kosovars.
>
> Bogdan Denitch and Ian Williams
>
> Bogdan Denitch, director of the Institute for Transitions to
> Democracy, which operates in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, is
> the author of Ethnic Nationalism: The Tragic Death of
> Yugoslavia (Minnesota). Ian Williams is The Nation's
> United Nations correspondent.
>
>
>