America's dilemma runs deep. If America persists in its initial judgment that problems are solved by putting enormous NATO violence against Milocevic's small violence, NATO should introduce ground forces and increase the level of violence. But no one can estimate how many ground forces are necessary to defeat the Serbians. As I noted in the previous issue, the Serbians have persisted in Kosovo for more than 1000 years. They declare constitutionally "we choose death rather than surrender." They have the Tito's guerrilla spirit and national armament. Clinton doesn't have courage to insist on the introduction of ground forces. He cannot admit that his initial judgment is wrong.
Therefore, "naval blockade and inspection" were proposed. But the UN warned that "civilians would suffer more and sooner than the Yugoslav army." France also objected to this proposal, saying "NATO will have to fight Russia, which provides oil to Yugoslavia, because inspection on the open seas is considered an act of war under international law."
Many European countries, including France, have insisted that they should seek a political solution with expectation of Russian intervention with either the UN or OSCE as the beneficiary. In France and Italy, the Communist Party and the Green Party, which are the members of coalition governments, object to air strikes. In Germany, the left wing of the Social Democratic Party also object to them. In the UK, although there is no trembling in the administration, a large-scale anti-war demonstration took place for the first time since anti-nuclear campaign of the 80's. In many countries, public opinion is divided. There is a possibility that great changes may well occur in NATO members long before the Milosevic administration collapses.
At the NATO summit, member states were unable to decide on useful next steps. But they adopted new NATO strategies eagerly proposed by the U.S., after they substantially revised them.
The U.S. initially proposed:
- NATO should change its purpose from protecting Western Europe from an invasion by Russia and Eastern Europe to coping in cooperation with a crisis which takes place outside areas controlled by NATO.
- These outside areas are unlimited areas, and include North East Asia (North Korea and China).
- NATO can carry out military operations without resolutions by the UN Security Council.
The NATO member states reached agreement on the first proposal. Since there is no longer any Russian threat and NATO member states cannot resolve conflicts with forces within NATO, NATO loses its raison d'etre if they are not allowed to cope with a crisis outside NATO areas.
Regarding the second proposal, the definition of the outside NATO areas; the U.S. wanted the right to intervene on issues throughout the world, acting as a "world police," by putting NATO under the control of the U.S. The European members are cautious about making NATO a "world police." So, the revision of this proposal ended up being very obscure. NATO is able to intervene in a crisis outside the NATO area only if the crisis, such as economic and political disorder, ethnic and religious conflicts, territory conflicts, improper reform and dissolution of states will lead to tensions and military conflicts which would damage the safety of NATO member states and neighboring states. When Secretary of State, Madeline Albright was asked about the definition of outside areas, she answered they include Middle East and Central Asia as well as the Balkan Peninsula. This is the same type of situation that occurred when Japan's former Chief Cabinet Secretary, Seiroku Kajiyama was asked about the crisis outside Japan and replied, "The areas outside Japan obviously include Taiwan."
Regarding the third proposal, the European countries, including France, argued strongly against disregard of UN resolution. Therefore, they included in the provision that the UN Security Council is mainly responsible for international peace and security and plays an important role in maintaining security and stability in the European and Atlantic area. With this sentence, France interprets that a UN resolution is necessary for NATO to carry out military operations outside NATO areas. But, the U.S. interprets it to mean that it is better if NATO operations are approved by a UN resolution but that a UN resolution is not a necessary condition. |
What's New
Index
Next