NationStates Jolt Archive

Lacadaemon raised an interesting point yesterday, so I thought I would read up on it - the whole Serbia thing was largely forgotten here in the wake of all the 9-11 and Iraq stuff that everyone rants about nowadays.

He said that Canada, under Chretien, participated in bombing Serbia, without UN permission to do so. Lacadaemon also said that Paul Martin (who was not PM at the time, but was nonetheless an important government figure) said that the UN was no longer necessary. In addition, the Canadian Parliament apparently went along with this as well.

True. So did several other nations - NATO nations. It was a multinational NATO effort. And for those countries that did not bomb Serbia themselves, some, like Italy, provided bases and logistical support to do so.

Here I quote one article I read:

In bombing Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 8 1999, NATO violated the UN Charter requirement that it not use force without UN Security Council sanction. It was also guilty of aggression in attacking a sovereign state that was not going beyond its borders. In its defense, NATO claimed that "humanitarian" concerns demanded these actions and justified seemingly serious law violations. This reply sanctions law violations on the basis of self-serving judgments that contradict the rule of law, but it is also dubious on its own grounds. The NATO bombing made "an internal humanitarian problem into a disaster" in the words of Rollie Keith, the returned Canadian OSCE human rights monitor in Kosovo. Furthermore, NATO refused to negotiate a settlement in Kosovo and insisted on a violent solution; in the words of one State Department official, NATO deliberately "raised the bar" and precluded a compromise resolution because Serbia "needed to be bombed." These counter- facts suggest that the alleged humanitarian basis of the law violations was a cover for starkly political and geopolitical objectives.

So, it would appear that the use of force without UN permission is not a new thing, nor is it solely a George Bush thing, nor, does it appear, solely an American thing to do. Depending on when certain Western nations feel like it, they ignore the UN and do whatever they want or are able to do - using force whenever it seems to their advantage to do so. I can't really buy the argument that NATO (or its individual member nations) were out to stop genocide (even though that's what was happenning), since the very same nations did nothing to stop Rwanda, and nothing to stop Darfur, in terms of the use of force.

It would seem then, that for those who cry loudly for Bush to be charged with violations of "international law", that almost every leader of every NATO nation at the time of the bombing of Serbia would have to join him in the dock - for doing essentially the same thing - waging a war in violation of the UN Charter.

ose who cry loudly for Bush to be charged with violations of "international law", that almost every leader of every NATO nation at the time of the bombing of Serbia would have to join him in the dock - for doing essentially the same thing - waging a war in violation of the UN Charter.

I wouldn't complain. :D

I wouldn't complain. :D

Ditto. I protested the nature of the intervention in the former Yugoslavia just like I protested the nature of the intervention in Iraq.


However, this is not to say that I recognise the UN as some kind of absolute sovereign organisation.

The arguement that Serbia and Iraq are comparable ignores that the Kosovo crisis was an immediate response to a humanitarian crisis, while the Iraq war was not.
Also, the Kosovo crisis didn't get any SC mandate mainly due to Russian opposition, while the Iraq war didn't get any mainly because of a lack of broad support.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kosovo get a mandate afterwards, while Iraq did not?

Ditto. I protested the nature of the intervention in the former Yugoslavia just like I protested the nature of the intervention in Iraq.

However, this is not to say that I recognise the UN as some kind of absolute sovereign organisation.

I think that Clinton, Blair, Chretien, and others of the time set an interesting precedent, which Bush only seems to have followed - not invented.

And it would seem to be precedent now.

The arguement that Serbia and Iraq are comparable ignores that the Kosovo crisis was an immediate response to a humanitarian crisis, while the Iraq war was not.
Also, the Kosovo crisis didn't get any SC mandate mainly due to Russian opposition, while the Iraq war didn't get any mainly because of a lack of broad support.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kosovo get a mandate afterwards, while Iraq did not?

Oh, I see. Then why wasn't there an immediate response to the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda? Darfur? Don't make me laugh.

And giving someone a mandate after you've bombed the crap out of a country without permission - that's sweet. So, if the UN Security Council came around today, and said it was OK that the US invaded Iraq, you would be happy with that?

Very funny. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Oh, I see. Then why wasn't there an immediate response to the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda? Darfur? Don't make me laugh.

And giving someone a mandate after you've bombed the crap out of a country without permission - that's sweet. So, if the UN Security Council came around today, and said it was OK that the US invaded Iraq, you would be happy with that?

Very funny. Ha. Ha. Ha.You think I was joking?
Anyway, Rwanda and Sudan are mainly due to extreme opposition by African states. Note that there was no comparable opposition to intervention in Kosovo. As far as I know, NATO is still being kept from doing anything but fly supplies in because the African Union doesn't want any white ground personnel in Africa.
Another good comparison is the gassing of the Kurds or the bloody repression of the uprising in 1991 in Iraq.
I find it deplorable that no one intevened at these times and that President Bush used the US military on a bogus campaign for weapons of mass destruction instead of for a campaign on human rights (which the administration doesn't seem to hold in such high esteem as one would expect from people advocating a crusade for freedom) for his personal vendetta.

You think I was joking?
Anyway, Rwanda and Sudan are mainly due to extreme opposition by African states. Note that there was no comparable opposition to intervention in Kosovo. As far as I know, NATO is still being kept from doing anything but fly supplies in because the African Union doesn't want any white ground personnel in Africa.
Another good comparison is the gassing of the Kurds or the bloody repression of the uprising in 1991 in Iraq.
I find it deplorable that no one intevened at these times and that President Bush used the US military on a bogus campaign for weapons of mass destruction instead of for a campaign on human rights (which the administration doesn't seem to hold in such high esteem as one would expect from people advocating a crusade for freedom) for his personal vendetta.

I agree on the Kurds thing. At a time when it was demonstrably clear that Saddam did have WMD and was using them, no one did anything.

The best evidence that could be found after we invaded was some deactivated anthrax (several tons) that had been buried in 1993 outside of one of Saddam's palaces. Yes, he had the stuff in the past, but by the time the US actually invaded, the WMD program was in a shambles.

I'm sure, however, that the Serbs were opposed to intervention. I sometimes think that the only reason NATO didn't intervene in Darfur and Rwanda is that only the US has the real logistical capability to mount such an operation - and that we would have had NATO stuck in those countries much the way we're stuck in Iraq now.

Once you destroy a country's infrastructure and replace its government, you can't just leave - you end up with really bad results.

I agree on the Kurds thing. At a time when it was demonstrably clear that Saddam did have WMD and was using them, no one did anything.

The best evidence that could be found after we invaded was some deactivated anthrax (several tons) that had been buried in 1993 outside of one of Saddam's palaces. Yes, he had the stuff in the past, but by the time the US actually invaded, the WMD program was in a shambles.

I'm sure, however, that the Serbs were opposed to intervention. I sometimes think that the only reason NATO didn't intervene in Darfur and Rwanda is that only the US has the real logistical capability to mount such an operation - and that we would have had NATO stuck in those countries much the way we're stuck in Iraq now.

Once you destroy a country's infrastructure and replace its government, you can't just leave - you end up with really bad results.I agree.

I agree on the Kurds thing. At a time when it was demonstrably clear that Saddam did have WMD and was using them, no one did anything.

The best evidence that could be found after we invaded was some deactivated anthrax (several tons) that had been buried in 1993 outside of one of Saddam's palaces. Yes, he had the stuff in the past, but by the time the US actually invaded, the WMD program was in a shambles.

I'm sure, however, that the Serbs were opposed to intervention. I sometimes think that the only reason NATO didn't intervene in Darfur and Rwanda is that only the US has the real logistical capability to mount such an operation - and that we would have had NATO stuck in those countries much the way we're stuck in Iraq now.

Once you destroy a country's infrastructure and replace its government, you can't just leave - you end up with really bad results.

I agree with that, too.