RE: National Sovereignty

Saludos reciprocos, Juan. 

Juan Luis Chulilla Cano wrote:

> I am not going to talk a lot about the obvius differences between
> so-called
> 'humanitarian intervention' (the purity of the intention is so naive), and
> a
> intervention, or, best, agression. It sounds to me very obvious. THIS
> case,
> kosovo, isolated from other 'interventions' (like Iraq in the 5 last
> years, or
> the embargo against Cuba), has a strong cualitative difference with the
> 'intervention' of Nazi regime. When NATO makes a mistake, and bomb
> civilians, it
> shows it in the media, and even try to apologize (ok, mixing with
> justification). When the Nazis bombs Guernica (well known), and kill 3000
> civilians in one hour, there wasn't any apologize. Furthermore, when USA
> aviation bombed Iraq last winter, there weren't any apologize too. AND,
> when
> Serbia's paramilitary forces commit huge atrocities, there aren't any
> apologize.
> They aren't mistakes, but programmed actions, in fact inhuman actions.
> 
Did the U.S. apologize ever for bombing a civilian neighbouhood in Panama
City and killing more than a thousand civilians when it invaded that country
in blantant disregard for international treaties in order to arrest one man,
Noriega? No, it did not and that fact has been ignored by the media. This
time NATO only apologized when it became evident that those bombings could
not be ignored. 

>     The analogy would be better between Bosnia war and Spanish civil war,
> but
> the one I'm using now is useful too. If France, or UK, or USA had said
> "Enough!"
> in 1936, a DEMOCRATIC regime hadn't be displaced in a wave of blood and
> pain. If
> the so-called 'international community' (maybe more properly named 'rich
> countries commnunity) had said the same in 1989, or in 1991, or in
> 1993-1996,
> the actual war hadn't ever happen. <Excuse me for my English, I am pretty
> tired>.
> 
I do not think so. In Spain we had a civil war in which the fascist side
intervened on the side of Franco, and the Soviet Union on the side of the
Republic, although in a much milder and more humanitarian form. The
so-called 'Western democracies' did not intervene because the ideological
composition of the Republic was not what they wanted. 

> Well, I can agree with your reasoning, Carlos, referred to your country
> (or
> Iberoamerica in general). But I'm afraid that the main supporters of
> non-intervention principles are USSR and China, countries with a modern
> record
> of abuse against another countries as bad as America, and far worst
> inside. I am
> very far from agreeing with USA's "backyard wars", or modern almost
> institucionalized aggression against muslim countries, but they aren't the
> same
> case that kosovo. Let me insist: without america, EU hadn't did anything,
> and
> the massacre had continuates till the end. After all, there were 600000
> refugees
> (ciphers of ACNUR, if I don't remember bad) before the start of NATO
> campaign.
> Before it, 2000000 refugees in Bosnia,...
> 
I would differentiate the motives behind U.S. and E.U. member actions in
Kossovo. While one can understand that the European countries should be
against atrocities in their continent, especially against a mainly Muslim
population, it does seem to me that that 'moral' standard is rather nuanced
by the way in which Milosevic has been singled out, while other violators
have been left alone. I see there the influence of geopolitical interests,
something very important for Germany, for example. It is no mere coincidence
that the countries where there seems to be some disagreement with respect to
the actions against Yugoslavia are France, Italy and Greece. Is it because
their moral standard is lesser or because of national interests? I believe
the latter.

In the case of the United States, I can hardly believe that the main motive
behind its actions is a 'humanitarian concern'. It is a good justification,
but the U.S. has a record of looking the other way or supporting violations
of human rights which makes their present position quite hipocritical. While
two European governments have been ready to judge and condemn a genocidal
character like Pinochet, the U.S. government has been less than forthcoming.
It is explainable, it was the U.S. government that put Pinochet in his
dictator's chair in the first place.

Another issue that demonstrates the U.S.'s and NATO's hipocrisy in alleging
humanitarian concerns is the fact that while they are ready to bomb the
Serbs and their country out of existence in order to 'save' the Kossovars,
they are not ready to risk the life of a single ground soldier in order to
do it. If morality and humanity are the issues, then why did those countries
renounce to the ground forces option practically from the beginning?  If you
argue that your only objetive is the humanitarian concern and you claim a
high moral ground in order to legitimize the violation of certain principles
of international law, like the prohibition to use force against a sovereign
nation, it seems to me quite inconsistent not to be ready to risk the lives
of your soldiers.

I believe the motive behind U.S. actions in Yugoslavia is basically 'the
arrogance of power'. Believing the they are all powerful and that no one can
resist their decisions, they have wanted to impose on Milosevic a treaty
they must have known from the beginning unacceptable to the Serbs. They
thought a few bombs would make the man capitulate and they have been proven
wrong. On the other hand, the new objectives and strategies of NATO, an
organization that should have disappeared together with its only reason to
exist, had to be tested. I think the U.S. picked the wrong place to do this
and we are looking to Somalia again but in a larger magnitude. Will
Yugoslavia become the Vietnam war of the nest decade? I hope not. I hope
that those who claim that the U.S. and NATO are looking for a way out
through Russia are right and a negotiated diplomatic solution can be found. 

But, then again, I cannot resist the thought that if the U.S. and NATO
persist in their crazy course, they would be defeated and then the unipolar
tendency of the world system would suffer a major setback. That would be
beneficial although at a terrible cost for the Serb people and for Europe. 

Best regards,

Carlos Alzugaray