U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATO'S INVOLVEMENT IN YUGOSLAVIA AND KOSOVO

I wanted to respond to this post, because I think Congressman Paul's
statement made good sense. [I've excluded most of the speech to save
bandwidth.]

When President Clinton was involved in the impeachment process, it made
sense to support him from at least a strategic perspective, for if he
would have lost, the right wing would have won, and the consequences for
the country would have been horrendous. Just a Dee-lay, Burton, Hyde
victory party would have provoked a national sickness, perhaps for another
generation.

War is a different story.

Recall it was a Democratic President that escalated the U.S. to an
unwinable, immoral adventure in Vietnam.

After spending a lot of time thinking about my position, I've concluded
that the U.S. involvement in the aggression against Yugoslavia is a
violation of law on several levels.

1. It is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
2. It is a violation of the NATO Charter, which is a defensive alliance.
3. It is a violation of the U.N. Charter.
4. ANY "collateral damage" violates the Human Rights Charter.

These are facts, which cannot be denied.

In an age when we ought to be demanding greater respect for the
foundations of international law, violations of the rules of international
society, first established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, reaffirmed
by the Vienna Convention in 1963, and reinforced by all manner of
international agreements during the 20th Century does not augur well for
the start of the next millennium. 

It was an American president, Theodore Roosevelt, that started the U.S. 
down the road of respect for international law at the beginning of the
century. It is an American president who has cemented the recent
conservative U.S. trajectory down the road of disrespect for international
law at the end of the century.

There is no doubt that the Kosovo problem could have been solved
diplomatically without the requirement that Mr. Milosevic be branded as
'evil'. He's simply an antiquated, nationalist politician out of step with
the times. One who hasn't learned the hard lessons all the victims of 20th
Century oppression ought to have taught us.

If the U.S. policy makers actually concluded that armed conflict was
necessary for U.S. strategic objectives, then there was a procedure for
pursuing that agenda. But President Clintion did not follow that
procedure. For that reason, his decision to use U.S. troops to bomb
Yugoslavia is an immoral and illegal one, and one that cannot be defended.
The death of one innocent Serb child from a U.S. bomb makes it immoral.

There is a case that can be made for intervention to stop Serb massacres
against Albanian Kosovars, but the ends don't justify the means in this
case, when the violations of international law has such graver
consequences and long-term effects.

Mr. Paul's speech outlined some of the probably consequences of this war,
so I won't repeat them. 

There is a possibility that the President will get lucky again. It may be
that he knows something significant that could effect the outcome we don't
know. For example, maybe Mr. Milosevic suffers from a natural terminal
illness, one that will bring new leaders to Yugoslavia, new leaders who
will sue for an end to the bombing. If the President knows something
beyond this that justifies the war agenda, he should tell the American
people.

But even if the President has some information we don't have, this still
won't justify violations of all existing international legal structures
for the achievement of a non-strategic objective in an age when we need
more adherence to and respect for international law.

It is equally probable that there will be some defining event involving
the deaths of many innocent people -- an event like the British massacre
at Jallianwala Bagh that helped turned the tide against their rule in
India, or the Civil Rights demonstrations in Birmingham where the entire
country could see Bull Conner's dogs -- some defining event will lead to
escalation or NATO defeat. This will bankrupt the policy and destroy any
legacy President Clinton might have been able to preserve. 

This probably won't help Democrats in 2000 either.
 
//CJR


On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 EPA2001@aol.com wrote:

> Congr. Rec on 4/21/99, beginning at p. H 226, through
> H 2264
>  
> U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATO'S INVOLVEMENT IN
> YUGOSLAVIA AND KOSOVO (House of Representatives -
> April 21, 1999)
>  
>  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's
> announced policy  of January 6, 1999, the gentleman
> from Texas (Mr. Paul) is  recognized for 60 minutes. 
>  
> Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of internationalism 
> celebrated NATO's 50th  anniversary with the Senate's
> 1998 overwhelming approval for expanding NATO to
> include Eastern European countries. This year's
> official inclusion of Poland,Hungary, and the Czech
> Republic made all NATO's supporters proud, indeed. But
> in  reality, NATO now is weaker and more chaotic than
> ever. 
>  

[Snip ...]