Patrick,
I hope to see somebody venture a good answer for this excellent question, <<If the United Nations Security Council were to vote against this action then what is NATO to do?>>
Perhaps the reason why NATO is so vague on what they expect to accomplish through bombing Kosovo is because NATO leaders realize that the United Nations will NOT go along with this recent action, in fact condemn it. Several members, i.e., Russia and China, have already spoken strongly against it. Add to this, over the last several years, the UN seems to me to have received a black eye from everything they have tried to accomplish in the region and this seems to be justification for NATO to step- in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what started the US Congress from withholding UN membership dues was over the mismanagement they saw by the UN in the the former Yugoslavia. But if things don't go right for NATO, then what?
The US security advisor today stated the intended goal for this recent bombing was to diminish military capability or accomplish peace. Sounds extremely vague to me.
The reason why I have so many misgivings about the new role that NATO is forming is that it seems to have given itself permission to police rogue nations. To those outside of NATO, this is taking a frighteningly different step from that which the United Nations charter set out to accomplish through police actions. Instead, this represents an entirely different enforcement action like what was with Iraq. Furthermore, I see NATO openly ignoring international law and UN charter.
If the United Nations votes against this NATO action and NATO persists, I think I would be justified in calling it the most powerful terrorist organization on earth. I truly hope that I am wrong. |
