Re: NATO, Kosovo, Russia

This is clearly expressed, and as a citizen of a country that's
unaccountably uncritical of US interventionism (as well as having an
unenviable record of its own) I have much sympathy with what Sergio says.
The question remains, should Milosevic be allowed to pursue his revolting
policies without hindrance?  In other words, a bad guy can sometimes do the
right thing, even if for the wrong reasons.  I don't think it's entirely
fanciful to draw a parallel with Hitler; and European politicians still
carry in their baggage the bogey-word 'appeasement'.


-----Original Message-----
From: Academia de Ciencias de Cuba <acc@ceniai.inf.cu>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>

>
>I agree with everyone more or less, but the point of sovereignty, very well
>presented in point five of Dr. Grimes post, cannot be overstated. No matter
>what, not only Yugoslavia, but the whole world is under attack. There is a
>widespread sense that no one is sure unless you please the NATO powers. The
>threat to the use of force, as well as the use of force, expressly
>prohibited by the U.N. Charter against any sovereign country has been
>overtly used by NATO powers under the approving gaze of the whole world.
>The whole system of international security that resulted from WWII has been
>shaken. Intervention by a foreign power is something we Cubans are very
>sensitive about. This country was twice under U.S. intervention and could
>only get independence passing a Constitution that had an ammendment
>approved by the U.S. Congress that said that U.S. could intervene at any
>time it wished to guarantee its interests. U.S. intervention in Latin
>America and the Caribbean is a common bad word. Too frequent in the near
>past to forget at all.
>
>Sergio Jorge Pastrana
>Academia de Ciencias de Cuba.
>
>