Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Susan Lynn who wrote (497)	3/28/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

NATO did give its word to the Kosovo Albanians that they would be supported if they would sign the peace agreement But what if the promise were contrary to international law and to the NATO treaty? NATO is supposed to be a DEFENSIVE treaty. What right did it have to make such a promise? What if it violated international law? Suppose you and your neighbor are sparring over the placement of a fence. I think he's right, and I (not a policeman, not a legal authority, just a neighbor upset with your fighting) threaten to burn your house down if you don't stop trying to erect the fence on what he claims is his lawn. If you don't stop, does that make it right for me now to burn your housse down because I promised your neighbor I would support him? I don't mean to trivialize the suffering of the Albanian majority in Kosovo by using such an example -- but the principle, it seems to me, is the same. I know of no legal basis under any treaty or under international law for NATO to be bombing the soverign nation of Yugoslavia. The U.N., perhaps. There is an argument for that. But not NATO. (And the defeat of the Russian resolution does not grant such a U.N. right of action -- there is a clear procedure for the approval of the use of U.N. forces, and it hasn't been followed.)