So far, nobody has taken me up on my invitation. They basically pretend that there is
no such thing as international law (clearly an indefensible position -- virtually every law
school in the country teaches courses on international law, and many law firm specialize in
it), or they claim that international law does not apply to this situation (but fail to provide
anything other then their unsupported argument for this, in the face of a legally binding
Charter we have signed which says exactly the opposite.)
go2net.com
The Security Council has effectively sanctioned this action. Does that mean that you now
consider it to be right? All of the signatories to the NATO treaty have at least acquiesced
in this action, therefore it can hardly be in violation of the treaty, which is, after all, no
more than an agreement by the signatories. Besides, the codicils that permit a more
"liberal" interpretation of the NATO mandate were agreed to in the last few years, I
believe. The breach of sovereignty is a serious matter only if we suppose that there can be
no humanitarian justification for intervention. For the most part, we do not attempt more
than diplomatic intervention, but the prospect of a refugee crisis, affecting Serbia's
neighbors, coupled with humanitarian concerns, is compelling. Having said all of that, I
think that this matter was botched, and that we waited until the last minute and trusted too
much to punitive bombing, with inadequate thought for the possible consequences should
the Serbs not readily fold...(April 8)
go2net.com
The Security Council did vote on a resolution condemning the action, which was
defeated...
go2net.com
As a lawyer, yet! So the UN has condemned the action? Nope, although the issue was
brought to the table. Therefore, it has acquiesced. What part of this do you not
understand?
go2net.com
James--- a.Nobody gave NATO a "mandate". Whatever a consensus of the signatory
nations says is within NATO's purview is, ipso facto, part of its mandate.
b.The refugee flows occasioned by earlier troubles in the region were largely absorbed by
Austria and Germany, and were directly related to the rise in neo- Nazi activity. The
refugee flows from Kosovo were likely to be absorbed by Albania and Macedonia, as has
happened, with potentially destabilizing effects on those countries. Two long- standing
NATO countries, Greece and Turkey, who are hostile anyway, could easily be drawn into
a wider Balkan war.
c.There are numerous hotspots where adjustments through "ethnic cleansing" might be
found attractive, and the Western powers wanted to take a stand against this crime against
humanity in their own back- yard.
d.The Muslim "street" frequently perceives the West to be anti- Muslim, and thus it is
useful to demonstrate a willingness to take sides on behalf of Muslims when the situation
warrants.
e.If we concede that Serbia is within the Russian "sphere of influence", it will be that much
harder to face them down when they make bids for hegemony elsewhere in the former
Eastern bloc.
f.Muslim terrorists would be happy to use the Balkans to gain a foothold in Europe, and it
prudent to deny them the opportunity.
g.The issues that were temporarily resolved in the former Yugoslavia might easily reignite
if Serbia is permitted resurgence, and broaden further as traditional sympathies are stoked.
These are reasons for intervention, whether or not you think that they "rise to the level" of
direct military involvement.... |
