User:Sharpsword

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] In Question – NATO’s Missions Were Necessary

Many authors, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization, say that NATO intervention Yugaslavia was necessary. This is not true. First of all NATO did not use enough diplomacy. Diplomacy is conflict prevention-medicine. If NATO used this medicine, it is very possible, there would be no Yugosavia (Kosovo, Bosnia) or Surbian conflicts with military personnel and civilians dropping right and left.

Defense Secretary William Perry said on- JULY 17, 1996 Copyright ©1996- 2007 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.

“In my judgment, that action, is at best premature. We have not exhausted our diplomatic options yet. In fact, as you know, Mr. Holbrooke is over there as we speak working on a diplomatic option. The people who have the view that this is something we just snap our fingers and do, do not have a correct picture of this. This would be a difficult and probably a bloody operation. Our military forces are prepared to take on difficult and bloody operations, but not if they're not necessary. And so the first thing to do is exhaust our diplomatic options.”

Diplomacy must be exhausted before military intervention is used but we see NATO acted without proper diplomacy as Noam Chomsky stated on- March 14, 2000 © Copyrighted 1997-2007

“At least this much seems clear. NATO chose to reject diplomatic options that were not exhausted and to launch a military campaign that had terrible consequences for Kosovar Albanians, as anticipated.”

NATO’s intervention was not necessary and could have been avoided if diplomatic relations were used.

The second argument is that there were alternate organizations for the job. NATO was not necessary for the missions in Yugoslavia because other organization could have handled it. Organizations whose focus is human rights and peacekeeping, like the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), whose membership nearly doubles NATO. NATO’s goal is not human rights or peacekeeping to begin with.

The third point is that the missions were inconsistent with Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty NATO chose to violate Yugoslavia's national sovereignty and did not use diplomacy in the missions; missions they were never initially evolved in. Article 1 says "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved…" NATO was not involved (continuing) "…by peaceful means…" NATO did not use diplomacy (continuing) "…in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered…" NATO violated their national sovereignty, in no way is this peaceful and in no way does it enhance security (continuing) "…and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force…" What did NATO do, but used military force

NATO’s actions were not necessary even as their own treaty claims. NATO intervention was not necessary. As we can see from these three arguments, the argument that “NATO missions were necessary” is not true.

[edit] In Question – Human Rights Justification

Another "reason" to intervene clamed is human rights abuse justifies NATO intervention. This is not true. I have five responses that eliminate this clam. First is that human rights is only an excuse NATO has been making seem that they are a “good will” organization. But in reality the invasion of countries like Yugoslavia are for the economic gain they receive from invading. This evidence proves this point. Quoting James Bissett Canada's ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania.

“There is always the danger that the human rights argument may only be an excuse to justify intervention for other quite cynical motives. We recall Hitler’s justification for invading Czechoslovakia was because he claimed the Czechs were violating the human rights of the Sudeten Germans. The long and frequently sad history of Western intervention in the Balkans should also serve as a warning about the dangers of taking sides in internal disputes. The NATO military misadventure in Kosovo that has destabilized the Balkans and shaken the framework of international security is another more recent example that calls into question the validity of so-called humanitarian intervention.”

NATO’s humanitarian aid is not the core reason for invading, lowering this good deed to the despised rank of an excuse.

My second response is that humanitarian intervention violates international law Intervention for this reason not only violates the North Atlantic Treaty but also international law which there is absolutely no justification for. [www.socsci.uci.edu/gpacs/research/working_papers/terry_nardin_humanitarian_intervention.pdf Terry Nardin Ph.D.,] professor from Northwestern University says-

“Humanitarian intervention is usually discussed as an exception to the nonintervention principle. According to this principle, states are forbidden to exercise their authority, and certainly to use force, within the jurisdiction of other states. The principle finds firm support in the United Nations Charter, which permits a state to defend itself from attack but forbids the use of armed force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states. Taken literally, these provisions forbid armed intervention, including intervention to protect human rights. And, in general, Humanitarian intervention finds scant support in international law.”

Human rights intervention is wrong. No international law would never support this type of intervention. My third argument is human rights intervention needs alternate justification Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Said it well on- January 2004

“Any humanitarian intervention should be conducted with the aim of maximizing humanitarian results. We recognize that an intervention motivated by purely humanitarian concerns probably cannot be found. Governments that intervene to stop mass slaughter inevitably have other reasons as well…”

First of all, it is not NATO’s place or NATO’s moral responsibility and should not be expected to intervene. And also, NATO’s ethics are damaged so much in the violation alone that it squanders the glory in helping out. My fourth response is NATO’s good will intervention is propaganda NATO’s ‘good will towards men’ clam is completely false. Does NATO really care whether or not my rights are abused? The answer is clearly no. Quoting Giedrius Sharkanas, Master of political sciences.

“Defending democracy, freedom and human rights has lately become a standard slogan used by the US, NATO and similar countries and organizations to justify not only blatant blackmail and shameless interference into internal affairs”

If NATO truly cared about human life they would not have committed the gross war crimes against human life. The idea NATO publicizes is that they are your big- brother here to protect you from the bully, but when NATO becomes that bully it sheds new light on the matter. Fifthly NATO’s intervention is not successful Richard N. Haass Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution said- Friday, June 04, 1999,

“Indeed, NATO failed to prevent [any] humanitarian nightmare. It's arguable whether NATO action intensified it. I would simply say it failed to prevent it.”

Even if it was good for them to intervene, NATO’s failure destroys any reason to continue in humanitarian aid. These four points I have brought up completely eliminate this clam of “human rights justification.” This argument does not stand.