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: The Philosopher who wrote (9135)	5/19/1999 9:18:00 PM
From: JBL	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17770

Germans Call for Public Disclosure on Chinese Embassy Bombing www.stratfor.com 05/19/99 Stratfor 2209 GMT 990599 - Schroeder's Call for Public Disclosure on Chinese Embassy Bombing Gerhard Schroeder's public intervention in the Chinese Embassy bombing affair is startling. If Germany wanted more information on the bombing and its causes, it would normally handle the matter quietly, within the machinery of NATO or in bilateral discussions among defense attaches in Washington or Bonn. The deliberate intrusion of the German Chancellor is neither casual nor trivial. Schroeder's demand has the implicit charge that NATO's military command might be deliberately withholding information. For the German Chancellor to choose to act so publicly on this matter raises serious questions. There is no question but that Schroeder and his government feels that the United States and the UK have exercised disproportionate control over NATO's decision making mechanism. Spokesman Jamie Shea's curt dismissal of Schroeder's suggestions on a bombing halt infuriated German officials, who felt that Shea was being both disrespectful and acting as if German views counted for less than U.S. or British views. Schroeder also has political problems at home. The Green Party, his coalition partner, is beginning to fragment over the war, with its pacifist wing showing signs of rebellion. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy, in Bonn's view, was entirely the U.S.' fault. The U.S. was not exercising prudence, at the very least, and Schroeder is not prepared to take the heat for it in German politics. Not only is he not prepared to cover up the errors or decisions that led to the bombing Embassy, but he is also prepared to force it out into the open. Finally, China's agreement to whatever deal is made is necessary if the UN Security Council is to permit participation. Schroeder was in Beijing last week working to prevent a Chinese veto. He clearly promised the Chinese that NATO was going to provide a full explanation, in public, of the bombing and he plans to deliver. If Bill Clinton or the NATO command is embarrassed by the revelations, that is their problem, from the German point of view. Indeed, an embarrassing expose might allow Schroeder to do what he very badly wants to do anyway, which is to end German participation in the war without being responsible for splitting NATO. Depending on what the report says, he can blame all damage to NATO on the Americans. Under any circumstances, Schroeder has demonstrated both that he will not allow the matter to drop and that he will bring the matter to a head. He is not allowing Washington to duck and cover in this matter. That gives us a sense of the real status of Washington-Bonn relations: chilly indeed.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (9135)	5/20/1999 3:42:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 17770

From a Dutch newswire... Air strikes: NATO bypasses UN Security Council by our US correspondent Reinout van Wagtendonk, 25 March 1999 The Security Council of the United Nations has largely been bypassed while the tensions over Kosovo and the killings and ethnic cleansing there mounted. In reaction to the NATO air strikes, Russia and China have immediately demanded a special meeting of the Security Council. In a careful statement, *Secretary General Kofi Annan first voiced cautious understanding* of NATO's action. Annan: "It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed. But there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace." Annan stated that the United Nations Charter does provide for the use of military force by regional alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But not without Security Council approval. Annan: "I have many times pointed out, not just in relation to Kosovo, that under the Charter the Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and this is explicitly acknowledged in the North Atlantic treaty. Therefore the Council should be involved in any decision to resort to force." Russia angrily called for an emergency session of the Security Council. Russia's ambassador demanded "the immediate cessation of illegal military action." The Dutch representative in the Security Council is ambassador Peter van Walsum. He expressed his regrets for the Russian and Chinese point of view. Van Walsum: "The Russians and Chinese feel that this Nato intervention is unacceptable and it contravenes the rule that the UN must not intervene in the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states. They made that very plain." Russia and China have veto power and so do the United States, France and the United Kingdom: all three leading Nato members. That means a stalemate in the Security Council over Kosovo. But Dutch ambassador Van Walsum does not believe that the impossibility of agreeing to a resolution to allow military intervention in a humanitarian catastrophe must mean inaction. Van Walsum: "If due to one or two permanent members rigid interpretation of the concept of domestic jurisdiction such a resolution is not attainable then we cannot simply sit back and let the humanitarian catastrophy occur. In such a situation we will look for the legal basis that we can find and what we find in this case is quite acceptable. It's a series of resolutions which make it plain that the situation in Kosovo is a threat to peace and security in the region." The Dutch UN ambassador also pointed out that a majority of Security Council members support the view of Nato**, not the view of Russia and China. Direct link: rnw.nl