From: "Charles J. Reid" 
Subject: IUFO: Against Aggression in Yugoslavia
Date: 25 Apr 1999 05:27:07 -0400
To: IUFO 


->  IUFO  Mailing List


The war in Yugoslavia has been going on for a month now. While I am
skeptical about the paranormal, I wonder if President Clinton has expended
his nine lives. It appears that the prognosis for his Karma is not good.
For what appeared to start out as a quick action leading to victorious
forced diplomacy has been hampered by bad weather and Serb stubborness.

When President Clinton was involved in the impeachment process, it made
sense for me as a Democrat 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 do 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 this 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.

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. I suspect that any successor to Mr. Milosevic will be equally
stubborn.

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 and human rights. You
cannot kill hundreds of human beings in defense of Human Rights. To defend
Human Rights, you must use law, the sovereign law on which the rights of
human beings are based.

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. And it may confuse the
American people about the proper justification to use violence and death
to solve problems.

//CJR




-> Send "subscribe   iufo " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: "Charles J. Reid"