More than a month of NATO air strikes failed to accomplish the initial goal to overthrow Milosevic. On the contrary, the air strikes have served to unite the Yugoslav people under Milosevic even more firmly than ever. In addition, their operations were unexpectedly prolonged and NATO impatiently attacked not only military targets but also other facilities, killing an enormous number of civilians.
The contradictions of "humane air strikes" were then revealed. When the Yugoslav army protected refugees who were returning to their hometowns in Kosovo from the border with Albania, the NATO bombing killed many Albanians by mistake. The U.S. first announced that there was a possibility that the Yugoslav army shot the refugees because they feared they might be asked to explain the atrocities had it been known that NATO had actually fired upon the Albanians. But they later admitted that the bombing was the result of a mistake and the commander apologized.
Have there been any commanders in the history of war who continue to bomb while apologizing for mistakes? "Humane air strike" is a contradiction in terms. Those who resorted to air strike tactics were either overconfident concerning the accuracy of the high technology capability or hallucinating that it was all an electronic game.
However unscrupulous Milosevic may be, this still cannot justify bombing. As long as leaders are chosen appropriately, it is not permissible for other countries to intervene with violence to overthrow or kill administrators because they do not like them. If this were permissible, it would be justifiable for other countries to bomb the White House because Clinton insulted international society, democracy and women by compromising a young woman in the Oval Office when he spoke with foreign leaders. If Shintaro Ishihara became prime minister and decided to invade Beijing because he doesn't like China, nobody would stop him.
Throughout the long history of war, people have developed internationally accepted principles of soveigntry on which the UN is built. Only an unlawful world would result if one country easily ignored these principles. Can the U.S. ignore these principles because the U.S. is a democratic country? Can NATO ignore them because NATO is a group of democratic countries, as the NATO commanders so often point out? The world has never designated the U.S. and NATO as the judges of morality. NATO is now being asked to explain how their activities can be allowed under international law. Even if these questions are set aside, more serious ones remain. Do they really think that the humane problems can be solved by air strikes?
Obviously neither Clinton nor the NATO leaders can answer these questions. NATO's 50th Anniversary Summit was held in Washington D.C. for three days in April. All the leaders attending took a serious look at the issues, but come to no agreement about future policy. |
What's New
Index
Next