Absolutely not so - it may have been unjust but it was still an internal matter. There are too many situations in the world where there have been actions that were in fact illegal - but we didn't jump in to redress the wrong.
It is no longer merely an "internal matter" when the potential for a flood of refugees into neighboring countries creates instability amongst other nations in that region.
The occupation of the Rhineland and Sudetenland were not "internal matters", but the inaction of western powers to counter Hitler led him to believe that no one would oppose his geographical aspirations of Lebensraum.
And neither is Milosevic's claim that subjugating and destabilizing another region in the Balkans is merely an internal matter. He tried to claim the same thing in Bosnia with the Serbs located there and look at the death and devastation that resulted.
Listen DD, I never advocated bombing this SOB like Clinton has done. It is a poor strategy, certainly given the limited physical support we are receiving from our NATO "allies". Bombing only cemented support behind Milosevic and disenfranchised any viable opposition.
However, when you let a wound fester until is breaks out into an all-out life threatening infection, sometimes drastic medical measures are required, including amputation. Europe and the US let the Kosovo wound fester by permitting Milo to play his manipulations without providing the necessary support to his political opposition.
And combining that with CNN and the public outcry to do something about the 250,000 Albanians who spent the winter of 1997-8 hiding in the hills of Kosovo as Serbian troops ran rampant trying to snuff out the diminuitive forces of the KLA displayed the template that Milo had laid out for dominating Kosovo.
So what vested interest does the US have in the Balkans?? Practically nothing that directly affects our people or national security. However, for Europe, particularly Greece, Turkey, and Italy, the stakes were rather high and it is very easy to imagine this mess blowing up into a greater conflict.
As for the UN, I can guarantee you that we're not the only ones who use that organization for our own particular interests. One of the reasons this has been a NATO, and not a UN response, primarily was due to the obstinent refusal of Russian and China in bringing the requisite pressure to bear early enough to prevent this from blowing up into a conflict where bombs fall on Chinese Embassies by accident.
Regards,
Ron |
