Okay, lets look at each of these reasons you provided. Also prior to embarking on this let's remember that NATO, provides for the use of military force only in the event that there is an "armed attack" upon a NATO member "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". Also remember that this NATO intervention in Yugoslavia is based upon a U.S. Senate resolution on NATO expansion approving "other missions when there is a clear consensus among it's members that there is a threat to the security and interests of NATO members". So let's remember this thing better be really important because we're acting outside of international law (U.N. doctrines) and NATO's primary directive.
Here are your points for NATO involvement, and my commentary:
a. Consensus of NATO (19 nations) was to act irregardless of any law.
This is the primary issue since according to our U.N. doctrines and "NATO mandate" we are acting outside of this by intervening in the civil matters of a country. Here we fundamentally disagree. I believe we cannot impose our beliefs/wills/political structures forcefully upon a nation. Assimilation or destruction is the mantra of the Natzi's and is the mantra that Blair was spewing in his NATO speech. Also let's remember that 80% of the sortie's are flown by U.S. aircraft; kind of one sided for a supposed 19 nation alliance.
b. Refugee situation creates de-stabilization of neighboring nations.
I agree, and now we have a serious one. 600,000 of the 800,000 refugees have fled since the U.S. airstrikes. There-in lies some significant evidence that the airstrikes only angered the Serb army more causing them to expell the refugees at an accelerated pace. Therefore I believe, as many do, that the airstrikes only made a bad situation into a horrific one.
Regarding de-stabilization what message does this send to the 17% Albanian population of Macedonia, and the 10-20% Albanian population of Greece ? Let's not even talk about Arafat now wanting a separate state. This separatist thinking may come home to bite the U.S. square in the butt in the near future. The fact that this alone sets dangerous precedents, means we should not be there.
c. Set a humanitarian example for the world.
I contend that NATO should clean house internally first. Turkey, one of the original 14 NATO nations, has slaughtered 37,000 odd Kurds since 1984 till the present. Compared to the alleged 2000 missing Kosovo Albanians, this is a small amount. Also NATO must be fair in this as over 10,000 Serbs were executed by Croats from 91-95 and over 600,000 were "ethnically cleansed" back to Serbia. Therefore I concur we cannot act fairly to both parties, as a result we should not act in a military way at all
d. Appeases the muslim hatred of the west.
Please, we cannot justify a war based on hoping that fanatical muslims such as Bin Laden will suddenly stop thinking the U.S. is an over-grown super-power bent on controlling the world; not even I'm convinced of that now.
e. Divide and conquer; Serbia was getting closer with Russia.
Firstly, prior to this, Yugoslavia was a very pro-West nation; stronger ties to the west than Russia. Since the bombing we have left Yugoslavia with only one "friend" left in the Russians. We can't blow up a nation because we think that they may become a communist nation.
f. Muslim terrorist use Balkans as foothold.
On the contrary, by helping the KLA and the Kosovo Albanians we are in effect supporting a terrorist group gain a greater foothold in Europe ?
g. Re-ignite Balkan conflict.
There was no sign of this. Yugoslavia was protecting their land from the threat of being removed forcefully by NATO. We can't blow up a nation based on wild speculation.
I'll give you my reasons why we should not be there in a follow up post ;)
Cheers
James |
