The undeclared war NATO is pursuing in Yugoslavia raises a fundamental legal
and moral issue that demands an explanation, particularly from the United States
and the Clinton administration that regularly cites international law to
validate its policy decisions: are the current combat operations legal
according to the standards established under international law?
Amidst a myriad of international charters, treaties, resolutions and laws,
not a single explicit justification can be found for the present military action
in Yugoslavia. The world community has not questioned the sovereignty of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which includes Kosovo within its
borders. In fact, numerous resolutions unanimously passed by the U.N.
Security Council throughout 1998 declared "the commitment of all member?states
to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia."
It appears as though the United States and NATO are invoking some vague,
unwritten principle in which interference within the internal affairs of a
sovereign nation is permissible in order to halt human rights violations.
Yet, if conditions in Yugoslavia warrant this kind of extensive multilateral
bombing campaign, then why was assistance lacking in the African Great Lakes
region where two million people were massacred in the last five years? Did the
one million people slaughtered in Sudan over the past ten years not constitute a
sufficient example of human suffering? What about the atrocities that have
occurred in Ethiopia, Tibet or Turkey, or the casualties that continue to mount
as a result of a whole host of contemptible human rights violations that are
taking place across the globe?
There is a dangerous precedent being set here, one with
potentially treacherous consequences. By invoking a fuzzy standard, a military
force, thrust within the borders of a sovereign nation, can appear to be
merited, perhaps even noble. But there is a flip side to this equation -
any nation with unsavory intentions could easily invade another independent
country under the guise of being a human rights protector. Not only is NATO's
use of force in Yugoslavia not authorized under international law, it is
expressly prohibited by a number of international instruments. Article 2 of
the United Nations Charter
prohibits
the use of force against the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation unless
it engaged in aggression against another sovereign state. Yugoslavia did
not engage in any assault of neighboring states outside its sovereign borders.
The U.N. Security Council does not authorize military force in this case, a
prerequisite to the use of military action under Article 51 of the UN Charter,
unless a nation is defending itself from attack.
NATO's charter, the document that gave birth to its
existence, is violated by this bombing campaign. NATO was formed as a
defensive
organization.
Force is sanctioned only if one of its member nations is attacked. No
mandate exists in the North Atlantic Treaty for launching an offensive against a
sovereign nation, despite its internal conflicts.
The 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties forbids the use of coercive
force to exact adherence to a treaty. Milosevic was given an offer he
couldn't refuse: sign the agreement or be bombed into submission. Rather
than acting as an intermediary, the United States, a third party to the "peace
process," is using military force as a method of negotiation.
The Helsinki Accords Final Act of 1975 guarantees the territorial integrity
of the nations of Europe. The peace plan that Yugoslavia was being asked to sign
would have resulted in the eventual modification of its borders. Customarily, a
peace accord is drafted with the goal of reaching a middle ground so as to
persuade both sides to endorse the pact. Not so in this instance. No
conscientious, mainstream Yugoslavian leader could ever support the proposed
agreement, much less a depraved figure such as Milosevic. The agreement shows
disrespect to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Yugoslavia. It
creates a self-governing Kosovo, empowered to affect Yugoslav politics, but with
no reciprocal arrangement for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Elections would effectively be controlled by NATO occupiers.
The Kosovo Liberation Army, a terrorist faction seeking Kosovo independence,
is not mentioned by name in the agreement. However, what would
absolutely preclude a Yugoslav leader from signing the proposed pact is the
mechanism for a referendum that would insure that after three years Kosovo would
be severed from Yugoslavia and become independent. This is
infeasible both culturally and politically. Serbian claims to Kosovo go back a
thousand years and are steeped in legendary significance.
The president has placed the country in a precarious situation.
The human rights violations cannot be stopped without the use of a formidable
ground force. Fighting a conventional ground war in the rough terrain of
the Balkans could quite possibly result in a Vietnam-style protracted
engagement. If the U.S. and NATO merely retreat, the international
embarrassment would be an unacceptable conclusion with potentially detrimental
aftereffects. We already see a growing anti-U.S. mood as shown by protests
in Greece, Macedonia, Slovakia and Moscow.
A new peace plan should be designed; one that takes into account the
cultural, historical and political circumstances and is, above all else, a
formula that will work and a plan that will endure.
* * *
