|
Letter Sent to US Congressmen About the Yugoslav Conflict
by Paul Dennis Sporer
The policy of bombing the Yugoslavia by NATO must stop and peaceful negotiations must resume. Although the government and paramilitary groups are indeed committing atrocities, this is the worst way of handling the situation. The US policy is based on arrogance, egomania, and gross oversimplification of the situation. It is also the result of a pathetically inadequate, failed foreign policy. The situation is considerably more complex than the administration has led us to believe (please refer to the attachments for additional information).
The Clinton foreign policy, as many know, is weak. Foreign relations must be based on strong, sound moral principles. Why? Very simply, because everyone wants to be treated equally and fairly, by ONE set of standards. Morality means being completely consistent, and not showing preferential treatment; ALL considerations must be taken into account. If double or triple or quadruple standards are used, then nations stop talking to one another; 'foreign relations' becomes a contradiction in terms. Even when principles are fair, diplomacy can fail, and sometimes military action in necessary. However, morality, and its natural outgrowth, humanitarianism, are obviously grounds for concern and economic intervention, but NOT for war. To take to the drastic step of military intervention, there must be clear evidence of material harm to the people of a nation. There are occasions for violating the borders of another nation, but these occasions are rare. The only rational standard for country A to use deadly military force against country B, is if country A has its vital resource interests threatened, or if its citizens are being directly threatened with serious harm. Although the perception of imminent material threat varies from one person to the next, and one group to the next, it is nonetheless a durable standard.
Thus, all possible avenues of peaceful resolution of a conflict through open and unprejudiced intermediation between parties must be exhausted before there can even be any consideration of warfare, and even if this happens, compelling evidence that the resources of the United States are under direct threat. In the case of Kosovo, neither test is met.
The US has not attempted to mediate the conflict between the parties fairly, and indeed has shown preference for the Albanian side. As for aiding these people who are being exploited by a government, there are, of course, peaceful, humanitarian ways to do this, as I am sure you know. Aiding them militarily is vastly different, and it creates an entirely different situation. Whenever a nation is attacked, ALL groups in that nation that oppose the government are being implicitly supported by the attacking country. Thus, nations must choose their allies carefully. It is absolutely immoral to support a terrorist entity in another country, even if they are opposing a violent regime. If an entity were to engage in a proper defence, without harming civilians, then the US could provide weapons and training. On the other hand, if they are not working for defence, then the US aligns itself with exploitative and terrorist elements, which would undoubtedly cause a loss of trust in the US by all other nations in the world. The only acceptable ally of the US must be one that is not guilty of high crimes themselves. Clearly, in at least two instances, the US violates this principle. Turkey, an American close 'friend' of long standing, has continued for over 500 years to engage in appalling human rights violations in southeastern Europe, including the attempted genocide of Armenians, an episode it has always denied in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whatever conflict might yet erupt in that region is more likely to be caused by Turkey, a nation of 65 million people, and 650,000 active soldiers, who are the truly superior military force in the region.
Further, even the Albanians in Kosovo are not free of shedding innocent blood. Let us consider the facts. There are 1.8 million Albanians in Yugoslavia who have over the last 40 years demanded and have received treatment as a separate political and social entity; the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army (or the acronym from their own language, UCK), is an extremist, terrorist group, seeking total independence from Yugoslavia. They have engaged in many violent attacks against civilians and policemen. The arms for this group have been supplied by the US and their ethnic brethren in neighbouring Albania, who number over 3 million people. Now, the US and 18 other nations are bombing military, urban and industrial targets in Yugoslavia which tremendously assists the armed warfare of the terrorist KLA. The Albanians have enjoyed for many years autonomy within Yugoslavia, but their campaign of terror has brought a repeal of this status. No one can claim to be acting in a 'humane' way, and still support a popular 'front' such as the KLA.
Immoral action on the part of one group causes other groups to take difficult steps, which might themselves appear immoral. However, we should not confuse assertiveness with barbarism. Look at it objectively: In the light of this entire situation, how are the Serbians supposed to act? Naturally, we do not condone atrocities, but vigorous police and military action is expected to be taken. Their present tactics are excessive, but it is difficult to say exactly what is 'enough' in dealing with a potentially explosive force in your own country. The continuing attacks by the KLA, in conjunction with the NATO attacks, give the Serbs moral legitimacy in engaging in 'security actions' in opposing this perceived fifth column enemy within their own borders. If the US and NATO were truly consistent in their moral position, they would be attacking both Serb AND KLA targets, showing themselves to be against all terrorist action. Because of their unmitigated support for the Albanians, WHATEVER security action that is taken will be condemned by the US and NATO, and this makes the Yugoslavian government even more encouraged to take severe measures.
We can also not overlook the inherently untenable position of the NATO action. The pact that binds NATO is clearly meant to be defensive in nature. Article 5 states: 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, IF such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of the individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked . . .'. The Albanians in Kosovo are not members of NATO and so NATO had absolutely no right, based on their own treaty, to have taken collective military action against Yugoslavia.
This is what inconsistent application of principles by America and major European nations has brought to the international scene.
Geopolitical and material considerations are also weak. The region of southeastern Europe, an ancient land regrettably raped and pillaged for hundreds of years, has for the US no important military or resource interest. American citizens have not been harmed nor threatened. Hence, the main reason for stopping the bombing Yugoslavia is so as not to set the precedent of violating a sovereign nation's borders simply because one nation or a group of nations do not 'approve' of the internal domestic policies that the government is pursuing in that nation. Imagine if North Korea attacked Japan for their 'maltreatment' of Koreans, or if China invaded Indonesia for their allowing and instigating 'genocide' to be committed against ethnic Chinese, or if Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kazakhstan united to help 'persecuted' Muslims in China. However, at this time, the most likely occurrence of this would be in Southern Asia: Pakistan decides to use nuclear weapons against another nuclear power, India, for the continuing 'aggression' against Islam. What would Americans have thought if an alliance of European nations had in the 19th century joined together to attack the US over ITS treatment of black slaves? What would Americans think if a large majority of blacks decided to form their own state, and China or an alliance of nations threatened the US with nuclear attacks if they did not give in? You can see that any excuse can be used for violating another nation's borders. God help us if such thinking becomes commonplace amongst governments in the world.
Further, these actions by NATO are already causing major foreign relation crises and geopolitical changes:
-NATO attacks, although they are not the ultimate cause, are indubitably the motivation for the flight of Albanians. If NATO and the US had remained militarily neutral, and had pursued the wise course of building up good relations and SUPPORTING other governments in the region, then Yugoslavia would have been far more reluctant to force this flood of refugees, since then the Serbians would be provoking economically and militarily competent neighbours.
-The US is concerned about stability in the region, yet now, because of its foolish actions, it is the most destabilised in 50 years. Nothing destabilises a region more than huge movements of refugees, for it creates tensions that simultaneously serves to further misalign social, political, economic and cultural forces.
-The government in Yugoslavia before the attacks started was weak, but now Milosevic has been heralded as a hero for 'standing up to the whole world'. This has seriously set back the cause of reformers in Yugoslavia perhaps for many years.
-Further, resettlement is now a major issue; Milosevic has said he would allow all 'citizens' to return to Yugoslavia, but how many refugees, without the proper papers, can prove that they were legal residents?
-Russian and Serbian solidarity has been completely overlooked. US-Russian relations have become adverse and Russia is looking at NATO as it did when it governed the Soviet Union, as an enemy and aggressor.
-Disagreements between NATO countries will quite probably harm future cooperation.
-Any treaty that Yugoslavia might sign would be INVALID under international law, since it was procured under duress (a 'gun to the head scenario').
-Finally, this action serves to encourage nations around the world to develop NUCLEAR weapons, since only then will the stronger powers not invade their nations. This action against Yugoslavia might bring several other nations into the 'club'. What will America do then?
If moral and material geopolitical issues are not at the heart of the US attack on Yugoslavia, what dynamics drive this forward? It is clear that the policies of the President Bill Clinton and the State Department are based on arrogance and oversimplification of the facts. The probable cause for this is Mr Clinton's egomaniacal attempt to raise his image after being impeached. This man respects no moral, social or legal boundaries, and is using this situation in order to make himself a 'hero' in the eyes of history, if not the people at this time. He will no doubt claim, whatever the final outcome, that he 'averted World War III'. Is this shocking insolence any surprise, given what was revealed about him during 1998? The State Department might have a more pragmatic viewpoint, that of limiting Yugoslavia's military potential in the region. However, they are hypocrites in citing humanitarian reasons as the basis for their actions, as their main goal is NOT to rescue the Albanians in Kosovo; in fact, they continue to adhere to this policy in SPITE of the harm done to the Albanians. Unfortunately, many other leaders and bureaucrats in the West share similar weaknesses of character.
Let me point out that I am not taking sides, am not committed to any ethnic group or nation, and do not have a blind allegiance to any party. I am entirely in favour of peace, but bombing another nation, violating its borders, killing its citizens, for reasons unrelated to the security of the US, and allying with terrorist groups, is simply morally wrong. This will surely bring more instability to the world, and further arrogant conduct from the leaders AND ethnic groups of other countries. Neither foreign government nor community nor individual can now trust what the Western powers say. Everyone is now encouraged to take an opportunistic approach to their own situations. By the US and European nations making a mockery of international law and morality, the influence of the UN is already waning, and perhaps most ominously, there will be increasing animosity with that major nuclear power, Russia. The Russians are sending warships into the region, they have apparently resolved to send weapons to the Serbs, and leaders of various factions are openly calling for troops and volunteers to aid their Serbian brothers. I urge you to please investigate these issues, and speak urgently to the President and the State Department to stop the war, and to bring sanity and morality into foreign policy. Let us not repeat this tragic mistake.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
|
