On your trick question....I always said that u should have bet a double cappucino;)
Anyway, here is an editorial from the India Times:
UN Fig Leaf is Shroud for International Law
By SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
DESPITE the imposition of a peace agreement on Belgrade last week, it
is still not certain how the crisis in Kosovo will finally end. After
violating every principle of international law and international
humanitarian law for more than nine weeks by attacking a sovereign
country, bombing civilian targets and killing some 1,500
non-combatants, one-third of whom were children, NATO has definitely
achieved a measure of military success. And yet, the agreement
hammered out by the envoys of Russia, the US and the European Union
and signed by President Slobodan Milosevic is ambiguous on certain key
points. In particular, the precise role of NATO in the proposed UN
peacekeeping force has to be worked out, as must the wording of the UN
Security Council resolution which will authorise the deployment of
such a force.
NATO appears to have succeeded in browbeating Russia at the G-8
meeting of foreign ministers in Bonn, and Finnish president
Martti Ahtisaari has been sent to Beijing to bring the Chinese on
board. Nevertheless, how events unfold over the next few days will
determine more than just the future of Kosovo and Yugoslavia. If
Russia, China and other members of the Security Council capitulate and
go along with a UN resolution rewarding NATO for its aggression, the
outlook for world order will be bleak indeed.
The US-led military alliance began its bombing campaign on March 24
with three key demands: that an international force led by NATO and
with NATO troops ''at the core'' be granted control over the province
of Kosovo; that Yugoslav army and police forces in the province be
withdrawn; and that substantial autonomy be granted to Kosovo's ethnic
Albanians pending a referendum to decide the province's fate three
years later. When the intensive bombing -- and the vengeful and
criminal actions of Serb forces -- led to the exodus of hundreds of
thousands of Kosovar refugees, a fourth demand was added: that the
refugees be allowed to return to their homes.
Mr Milosevic, an authoritarian leader who had no faith in his people's
capacity to resist compellence, has now agreed to withdraw his forces
from Kosovo and allow in a UN force with a ''fundamental'' NATO
component and a ''unified command structure''. On paper at least, he
is also committed to Kosovo's autonomy and to the return of the
refugees. Still, NATO refuses to suspend its bombing. Even though the
Russians have said that control of the international force would be
with the UN and not NATO, US officials insist the peacekeeping mission
will be a NATO operation through and through. In Macedonia, Yugoslav
generals were presented with a plan which involved the immediate
deployment of NATO soldiers on Yugoslav territory even before any UN
Security Council resolution was passed. So contemptuous is NATO of the
UN that it has already decided the commander of the force will be a
British general. During the G-8 deliberations on Monday, British
foreign secretary Robin Cook also revealed his contempt for China. If
the G-8 hammered out a draft resolution among themselves, he said, the
Yugoslavs can be sure the Security Council will ratify it.
If Russia has any regard for its own self-interest, it must ensure,
even at this late stage, that the Security Council resolution on
Kosovo satisfies six principles.
First, NATO must suspend its bombing before the Security Council takes
up any draft.
Second, the sovereignty of Yugoslavia must be respected, not just
formally but substantially.
Third, since Belgrade has consented to the deployment of UN troops,
the mission mandate should be drawn up under Chapter VI of the UN
Charter and not Chapter VII, which is inherently coercive. If NATO
troops enter Yugoslavia armed with Chapter VII powers, they will be a
law unto themselves. The Belgian, Canadian and Italian 'peacekeepers'
who tortured Somali civilians during the UN intervention there were
never adequately brought to book by their own governments.
Unfortunately, Mr Milosevic let himself be talked into allowing a
Chapter VII operation and may find it difficult to change track at
this stage.
Fourth, if it is to be Chapter VII, Moscow must at least ensure that
the mission is politically neutral. For peacekeeping to have any
meaning, peacekeepers must be fully trusted by those among whom they
are supposed to keep the peace. If NATO troops from any of the 10
countries which are bombing Yugoslavia are now sent as peacekeepers --
or if NATO is allowed to command the force -- this would make a
mockery of natural justice as well as of UN practice.
Fifth, if at all there is to be any reference to war crimes in the
resolution, equal cognisance must be taken of both Belgrade's
operations and NATO's bombardment. The killing of civilians is
reprehensible regardless of whether the victims are Albanians or
Serbs. In this, NATO leaders are as culpable as Mr Milosevic and
should also be held accountable for their actions.
Finally, the deployment of UN peacekeepers must not be open-ended. An
explicit expiry date must be built into the resolution -- as exists,
for example, in the mandates for UN forces in Macedonia and Angola --
so that each subsequent extension requires a fresh debate in the
Security Council as well as the concurrence of its five permanent
members.
Not incorporating an expiry date could well lead to a replay of the
tragedy in Iraq, where the lifting of the UN embargo -- now in its
ninth year -- is being blocked by the intransigence of the US and
Britain. UNSCR 687, which ended the Gulf War, only states that
sanctions will be lifted when the Security Council is satisfied Iraq
has fully disarmed. Thus, just one country with a veto can block the
lifting of sanctions in perpetuity. If UN troops (or NATO troops under
UN cover) enter Yugoslavia with a mandate which requires a fresh vote
in the Security Council for them to be withdrawn, Kosovo could be
under NATO occupation for a thousand years to come.
If Russia and China are not prepared to stand by these principles --
and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they won't --
international brigandage will have been legitimised. The UN needed to
be fully seized of the matter before NATO started its aggression. Now,
if all the world body does is meekly sanctify what NATO is seeking to
impose on Yugoslavia through its ferocious air war, it is better that
there be no Security Council resolution at all. International law has
already been bombed into its grave. A UN resolution drafted by NATO
would not be a fig leaf but a shroud.
Siddharth Varadarajan is Assistant Editor, The Times of India.
Siddharth Varadarajan
The Times of India
7 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi, 110 002 |
