I like hard and fast rules.
X, in my opinion, your position has one great virtue: it is consistent. I would not even try to change your mind.
In fact, I could only wish that every policy-maker in the world were as consistent, because then we would at least know what to expect from them!
I will raise one further question, however. And that is, what if the consequences an "internal" conflict profoundly affect neighboring countries? To take a specific example: what if it spills over, in the form of a massive refugee influx into neighboring countries?
In my opinion, that is essentially why the European countries (in the form of NATO)have been involved in the Yugoslav conflict for many moons now. The Western European countries, just as much as the Eastern European countries, are, essentially, ethnic states. And they do have a problem with unemployment. They can take only so much foreign immigration before xenophobic, or semi-xenophobic, spokesmen begin to emerge: Le Pen in France, skinheads in Germany, etc., etc.
Remember some years ago, when Albanian Albanians, under the press of poverty rather than conflict, began pouring into Italy, and the Italians deported them all back? The last thing that Italy -- and other European countries -- want now is an influx of Kosovar Albanians. Western Europe hasn't even succeeded in digesting the Bosnians.
I won't even go into the question of the long-term impact on Macedonia, and through Macedonia, the impact on Greece. I guess my point is that internal conflicts do not always remain internal, even in the absence of war...
jbe
|
