For the record, I am not related to the dead George Papadopoulos<g>
At least I got these questions off my back. The only one left is if people would stop saying "Oh, just like in Webster" when they hear my name<ggg>
Times of India
Saturday 5 June 1999
Editorial
Law the Loser
Although the peace agreement worked out between the US, Russia and the EU and
imposed on Yugoslavia contains many elements that are distasteful to Belgrade, it
is international law that has undoubtedly emerged as the biggest loser. For 72
days, NATO warplanes and missiles relentlessly bombarded a small nation of 11
million, killing more than 1,500 civilians, wounding several thousands more and
destroying close to 100 billion dollars worth of property. Consequent to the
bombing and to the unpardonable actions of Serb troops, more than 800,000 Kosovar
Albanians fled their homes and took refuge in neighbouring countries.
With so much destruction and displacement having taken place as a result of NATO's
armed aggression, the international community is entitled to ask why the agreement
which was finally reached on Thursday could not have been hammered out much
earlier. Though NATO leaders argue that the fault lies entirely with Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic, the fact of the matter is that NATO's intransigence
was equally if not more to blame. From the time of the Rambouillet 'accords', the
US had been insisting on two key conditions: the imposition of NATO political and
military control over the Yugoslav province of Kosovo, and the right of the
Kosovar Albanian population to secede after a transition period of three years.
For Belgrade, these conditions were impossible to fulfil and it was only when the
US was persuaded by its Russian and European interlocutors to drop these two
demands that a peace agreement became possible.
Under the terms of the Ahtisaari-Chernomyrdin plan, Yugoslav forces are to leave
Kosovo in a phased manner. As soon as the pull-out begins, NATO's bombing campaign
must be halted. Next, peacekeeping troops mandated by the UN Security Council will
enter Kosovo to enable the ethnic Albanian refugees to return to their homes.
Though the precise composition and command structure of the force is to be the
subject of further negotiations between Yugoslavia and the UN, Belgrade has agreed
to allow NATO troops an ''essential'' role. The territorial integrity of
Yugoslavia has also been affirmed, unlike Rambouillet, although how effectively
Belgrade will be able to exercise its sovereignty over Kosovo with NATO troops in
the province remains to be seen. The Kosovo Liberation Army has said it will abide
by the latest peace agreement -- which calls for its disarmament -- but there is
no reason to assume its drive for independence is to be abandoned.
The Serbs of Kosovo will not trust any NATO peacekeepers and their exodus from the
beleaguered region cannot entirely be ruled out. If the peace agreement is to have
a fair chance of working, it is essential that the UN Security Council draft a
resolution that is balanced and impartial and not riven by the political
objectives of the US and its allies. Russia, whose role so far has been
questionable to say the least, must not let Washington completely trample over all
principles of international law. The International Court of Justice did not grant
Yugoslavia's plea for a halt to the bombing on a technicality but it did hint that
the military alliance's use of force was illegal. If the US is able to get away
with such blatant misuse of military power, no nation or region can regard itself
as safe.
Operation Allied Force may have pacified Kosovo for NATO but the rest of the world
is now wondering who will pacify NATO.
|
