Wars and Conflicts permalink
Kosovo then - Libya now
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
As the History page points out it was on this day in 1999 that NATO intervened directly in Kosovo to stop Serb attrocities and today the ALA, RAF and USAF/USN/USMC will be launching attacks on Libya to stop The Colonel's attrocities - in both conflicts "the West" has unilateraly declared for one side over the other depsite the stated intentions of "protecting the innocent".
The question is therfore if you want to get your own way you need to get a few innocents killed, get the "regime" to react and then NATO air forces will follow to bomb the bejesus out of the "regime" and you'll get what you want.
I mean the KLA were hardly fighting their war with Salvation Army tactics - to quote Hitler discussing Army Group G's tactics under Blaskowitz. And with all due respect to the Libyan rebels I daresay they aren't exactly comitted to the Geneva Conversation and Hague Convention. -
Message 2
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
As the History page points out it was on this day in 1999 that NATO intervened directly in Kosovo to stop Serb attrocities and today the ALA, RAF and USAF/USN/USMC will be launching attacks on Libya to stop The Colonel's attrocities - in both conflicts "the West" has unilateraly declared for one side over the other depsite the stated intentions of "protecting the innocent".
The question is therfore if you want to get your own way you need to get a few innocents killed, get the "regime" to react and then NATO air forces will follow to bomb the bejesus out of the "regime" and you'll get what you want.
I mean the KLA were hardly fighting their war with Salvation Army tactics - to quote Hitler discussing Army Group G's tactics under Blaskowitz. And with all due respect to the Libyan rebels I daresay they aren't exactly comitted to the Geneva Conversation and Hague Convention. Â Surely it must have been a western plot to steal the Kosovans' oil. -
Message 3
Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
As the History page points out it was on this day in 1999 that NATO intervened directly in Kosovo to stop Serb attrocities and today the ALA, RAF and USAF/USN/USMC will be launching attacks on Libya to stop The Colonel's attrocities - in both conflicts "the West" has unilateraly declared for one side over the other depsite the stated intentions of "protecting the innocent".
The question is therfore if you want to get your own way you need to get a few innocents killed, get the "regime" to react and then NATO air forces will follow to bomb the bejesus out of the "regime" and you'll get what you want.
I mean the KLA were hardly fighting their war with Salvation Army tactics - to quote Hitler discussing Army Group G's tactics under Blaskowitz. And with all due respect to the Libyan rebels I daresay they aren't exactly comitted to the Geneva Conversation and Hague Convention. Â Surely it must have been a western plot to steal the Kosovans' oil. Â Hi CJ
What I mean is this - when the Marsh Arabs rose up against Saddam it was (at the time of Desert Storm) a reasonable assumption, much like the Poles in Warsaw in 1944 that the side that was fighting against their enemy would help - and we didn't.
Now we find ourselves backing one side with distinctly dubious morals after backing the KLA with its own distinctly dubious morals - and that's not taking Serbia's side - but we've been dragged in to someone elses war AGAIN - we're aren't arming Muslims in North Western China fighting against PRC opressions (and we backed the Afghan's against Soviet Communism!). -
Message 4
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Yes.
The Kosovo War in 1999 was Anthony Blair's first illegal war of aggression. He was allowed to get away with that and so was emboldened to go on and launch a further 3 illegal wars.
Twenty years ago the Kuwait War (1990-91) was an prime example of the successful upholding of international law. Since then, however, respect for international law has been systematically eroded by the very states which previously had made such a point of identifying themselves as its upholders. The UK has been one of the worst offenders in this. -
Message 5
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Twenty years ago the Kuwait War (1990-91) was an prime example of the successful upholding of international law. Since then, however, respect for international law has been systematically eroded by the very states which previously had made such a point of identifying themselves as its upholders. The UK has been one of the worst offenders in this.Â
I dare say that, although everybody talks about the "international law," nobody can articulate what it is exactly. I mean, in clear and enforceable terms, so that these everybody agree on what it is. So, apart from what the said "upholders" say about what it is, it does not mean anything. And so it's either up to the "upholders" for one to sleep better knowing that there's some "international law" out there, or one simply needs to reconnect with reality. -
Message 6
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 1st April 2011
GrandFalconRailroad:
The question is therfore if you want to get your own way you need to get a few innocents killed, get the "regime" to react and then NATO air forces will follow to bomb the bejesus out of the "regime" and you'll get what you want.Â
That plus threatening an invasion. People today still don't understand how that forced the Serbs to back down. -
Message 7
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 1st April 2011
The Kosovo War in 1999 was Anthony Blair's first illegal war of aggressionÂ
On what basis was this war illegal ?
What we are seeing now is the extension of international law to include civil wars. Previously this would have been ignored as a matter of 'self determination'. That is why the Marsh Arabs were left to fend for themselves 20 years ago.
In respect of Un supported outside nations intervening for humanitarian reasons, international law has been in a state of flux and growth in its span since the end of the second world war.
Whilst I have no problem in principle with stopping civilians getting killed, I think there are huge practical problems. There are also moral problems taking action which might actually lead to a particular conflict not coming to a swifter end, which I suspect is the case in Libya.
Additionally, we are now talking about arming the rebels when it is almost certain that their ranks include Al Qaeda or its fellow travellers.
We may yet find that a villain can be replaced by a monster. -
Message 8
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 1st April 2011
For clarity :
'Un supported' above should be 'UN supported'. -
Message 9
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Saturday, 2nd April 2011
This is Politics, people!
Any connection to right, wrong, legal, illegal, etc, is purely co-incidental,.
Those words can all re-defined to suit 'our interest' in any given situation, so that whatever 'we' do, (whoever 'we' might mean! ) is always the 'right thing' at the time, and, in fact, is the only right and honorable thing for 'us' to do! International law is especially easy to interpret in your own favour, as much of it seems to be open to interpretation anyway.
It has always been thus, and I see no sign that it might change in the future. -
Message 10
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 2nd April 2011
the Kuwait war was in fact the first of the Oil Wars where the US led a coalition to defend their oil interest - getting their arab friends on board to make it look as if is wasnt their idea
el timor was invaded by indonesia and thousands massacred but they didnt have oil - lots of others etc etc
st -
Message 11
Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
I note Mr Hague was saying today the war won't be a staemate.
But if he looked at the history of fighting in LIbya until Panzerarmee Afrika decided to retreat toward Tunisia, fighting in LIbya was a very back and forth thing. UNl;ess we're about to give the rebels massive airlift capacity then they aren't going more then 5 miles off the coast road. -
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Itâs become a feature of neo-imperialist apologists to say that 360 years after the Treaty of Westphalia, 150 years after the First Geneva Convention, 110 years after the First Hague Convention, 90 years after the Treaty of Versailles with its Article 231 (the âWar Guilt Clauseâ) and 60 years after the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials, now all of a sudden we are to forget all that because really there is no such thing as âinternational lawâ.
When international law was being flagrantly ignored in the 1939 it took the tiny country of Finland to stand up to the aggression of Stalinâs Soviet Union during the Winter War. Later on, when the Finns were in a position to go on the offensive in the Continuation War from 1941, they made a point of strictly observing the 1939 border and not transgressing into Russian territory. This was despite the urgings of Nazi Germany for the Finns to attack Leningrad and beyond. That is what is meant by âupholding international lawâ and many Russians I have met have expressed great respect for the Finns for that. Letâs not forget that the Russian people were also victims of Stalinâs Soviet Union as much as anyone else. Upholding international law, therefore, protects everyone. Thatâs the ârealityâ.
NATOâs attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was illegal because it was not sanctioned by either the United Nations Security Council or by the General Assembly.
As some sort of âjustificationâ for the attack NATO issued atrocity propaganda in order to dehumanize Serbian people. The main tack of this was to report solely in terms of âSerb attacks on Albaniansâ (never the other way around) and also to indulge in âsaturation coverageâ of the NATO campaign in order to deliberately deny the Yugoslav side of the story any airtime. This was in the early years of the Blairite regime when the techniques of news manipulation and media management, as practiced by the likes of Alastair Campbell etc, was in its heyday. By not objectively challenging the NATO line, the UK mass media was, therefore, complicit in this deception. So, yes, the Yugoslavs when faced with this relentless onslaught and with no chance of redress in the court of public opinion did indeed âback downâ after large numbers of Yugoslav civilians (both Serbian and Albanian) had been massacred by NATO. -
Message 13
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Itâs become a feature of neo-imperialist apologists to say that 360 years after the Treaty of Westphalia, 150 years after the First Geneva Convention, 110 years after the First Hague Convention, 90 years after the Treaty of Versailles with its Article 231 (the âWar Guilt Clauseâ) and 60 years after the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials, now all of a sudden we are to forget all that because really there is no such thing as âinternational lawâ.Â
It must be an unforced error to throw Nuremburg in there. You're calling 'international law' a trial, in which the biggest human right violator in history of mankind was the puppet master?
neo-imperial apologistÂ
It would be quite a feat to define this one before tackling the definition of the 'international law,' Vizzer. -
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
You've hit the nail on the head suvorovetz.
The Nuremberg trials and the various âwar crimes trialsâ over the decades have invariably and simply been cases of victors justice â nothing more and nothing less. Had Blair, say, been tried by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) for âplanning, initiating and waging wars of aggressionâ and found guilty then he would no doubt have been hanged. Luckily for Blair etc the IMT no longer exists. Its current manifestation the International Criminal Court (ICC) could feasibly try Blair for the Iraq War and the crime of aggression but (very conveniently for Blair etc) the Rome Statute which set up the Court does not provide a âdefinition of aggressionâ. So it's a cop out.
Just because the interpretation and application of international law has been inconsistent and hypocritical by some (e.g the UK), this does not mean, however, that international law does not exist. Quite the reverse. It means that the onus is on those of us who support international law to be steadfast particularly when our own governments have been guilty of violating it.
Neo-imperialism has emerged (in the UK at least) since the end of the Kuwait War in 1991. Is this coincidental with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact that same year perhaps? Whatever the causes of it, neo-imperialism and casual interventionism is the phenomenon whereby our rulers have declared that they have the right to murder whoever they want, wherever they want and whenever they want and there is nothing which you or I or anyone else can do about it. A neo-imperialist apologist, therefore, is someone who promotes that view.
One can not use civil strife or even civil war as an excuse for militarily violating the sovereign territory of another state. Under international law such an action can only be sanctioned by the United Nations and then only under the terms of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. No such sanction was granted to NATO with regard to the Kosovo War of 1999. -
Message 15
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Vizzer, it's amazing how much we agree with one another, and yet you keep promoting the "international law," which I find a completely hollow concept. Consider the key word from your own phrase
Under international law such an action can only be sanctioned by the United Nations and then only under the terms of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. No such sanction was granted to NATO with regard to the Kosovo War of 1999.Â
The key word here is the United Nations. I mean, I know that they have a charter and a structure and all that. But it would take an act of serious self-delusion to think that this body is not literally run by a bunch of political hacks - and worse yet â run of the mill spies, who cannot even abstain from violating NYC parking ordinance even for one day. Look who's sitting on the UN "Human Rights Council," for crying out loud. -
Message 16
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Viz,
One can not use civil strife or even civil war as an excuse for militarily violating the sovereign territory of another state. Under international law such an action can only be sanctioned by the United Nations and then only under the terms of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. No such sanction was granted to NATO with regard to the Kosovo War of 1999.Â
As Suv points out above, the term "international law" is a farce. There is no international law but only international politics. The UN isn't a government passing laws to enforce, it's a diplomatic forum passing resolutions to endorse ("endorse, not enforce" Some one call Jesse Jackson!)
But seriously, the Charter isn't a Constitution; it's a cut & paste copy of the League of Nations' charter, meant to make sure no bloc of the Big Powers of 1945 gangs up on another. To put it in an American context, you may as well talk about "interstate law" instead of "federal law." It doesn't work. -
Message 17
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Spot on, Suv & WC!
'Law' means nothing without 'Enforcement', and that does not exist internationally. Occasionally the Big Guys can bully enough of the little guys into supporting a resolution to act, but only if and when it suits them. The UN is an expensive talking shop, a toothless pussycat, arguing over details, while people die or suffer.
So we do Libya, but not Zimbabwe, we do Kossovo, but not Gaza, we do Iraq, but not N.Korea, we are outraged by 'European' victims, but not 'African' or 'Asian' ones, etc, All these 'International' actions depend on the political wishes of the 'Big Players', and the 'legal' position is manipulated to suit them. Legal wheels can be 'oiled', if enough of it is available, it seems!
We merely acting to 'defend civilians' - from Gadaffi forces only, it appears. If the rebels fire on a Gadaffi-occupied city, are we going to bomb them?
Only by accident, it would seem! -
Message 18
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 4th April 2011
By the way - not to nitpick and divert from OP too much (sorry, can't help myself
),
Later on, when the Finns were in a position to go on the offensive in the Continuation War from 1941, they made a point of strictly observing the 1939 border and not transgressing into Russian territory. This was despite the urgings of Nazi Germany for the Finns to attack Leningrad and beyond. That is what is meant by âupholding international lawâ and many Russians I have met have expressed great respect for the Finns for that.Â
The Finnish counter-offensive in 1941 actually spilled over the 1939 border here and there - granted, for tactical purposes, by and large. However, Finnish field commanders had to contend with increasing desertions and refusals to fight beyond the 1939 border. The Finns deserved much respect not only for their war conduct, but also for how they coped with ending the war on the losing side. Slightly paraphrasing Solonin, when you cross the border from Karelia into Finland, you would not know who was paying reparations to whom for years. -
Message 19
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 4th April 2011
One can not use civil strife or even civil war as an excuse for militarily violating the sovereign territory of another state. Under international law such an action can only be sanctioned by the United Nations and then only under the terms of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. No such sanction was granted to NATO with regard to the Kosovo War of 1999.Â
In general terms, this seems a too sweeping claim to me. While civil war in another country may not be a sufficient casus belli, it is an accepted standard that the prevention or halting of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or other serious crimes against humanity is enforceable as a peremptory norm, i.e. regardless of whether the offending party signed up to the treaties banning these. The UN security council has enshrined its right to intervene in such cases in resolutions, but arguably this is superfluous and everybody has a standing obligation to act in such cases. Evidently there always is a lot of hair-splitting over what precisely constitutes ethnic cleansing or serious crimes against humanity. But it is not self-evident that the UN security council, where arbitrarely selected large states have a right of veto, is the correct body to make legally binding decisions in these matters.
To claim that the Nuremberg trials were pure "victor's justice" certainly goes too far. It is true that double standards were applied, especially in charges about planning aggressive war, where the USSR was obviously also guilty. However, there were also attempts to apply some equality of standards, for example in the trial of Doenitz. Above all some of the actions of the Nazi regime were clearly illegal by any existing or previous standard, so that the victors could hardly be accused of inventing a completely new set of rules.
But I agree that there has been a worrying trend in recent years, of governments asserting a claim to immunity from prosecution that is unprecedented. The pardon of Caspar Weinberger by the elder Bush was worrying, as he had clearly broken both US and international law. However, under George W. Bush, US politicians began asserting that their public role provided them with immunity from prosecution by default. There also was the disastrous Guantanamo Bay precedent, constructed there not because of the prisoners, who could just as securely be held anywhere else but because of the guards who put claim to be outside the reach of US law. As US courts are obliged to enforce the treaties the country has signed up to, this also attempts to create a space outside the reach of international law. Torture, it hardly needs to be said, is also considered banned under peremptory norms, so this doesn't fly.
But I don't think there is a problem of "casual interventionism". These decisions are actually heavily debated, although there is something of a democratic deficit in the debate because the average voter, MP or journalist is so ill-informed. A degree of injustice is also incorporated in the shrill insistence of politicians that they should be judged not by the results of their actions but solely by their good intentions. Those who make such decisions are morally obliged to be competent. -
Message 20
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 4th April 2011
But I agree that there has been a worrying trend in recent years.....The pardon of Caspar Weinberger by the elder Bush was worrying....under George W. Bush, US politicians began asserting that their public role provided them with immunity from prosecution by default.Â
Well, this is another case of too much elaboration for the argument's sake. "It works, but what bothers me is that [fill in the blank with your favorite politician] has eroded it with [fill in the blank] and [fill in the blank]."
It works, all right. As a joke. -
Message 21
Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
If Libya and Serbia were so terrible then why didn't we in the way we did with Argentina, Germany and Japan, declare war with the usual diplomatic niceties and then go and bomb the bejesus out of the countries concerned?
I maintain that the key to get something done in your contry is to start an unwinnable war and then get NATO to be your air force. Much like the Kurds in Iraq/Kurdistan. -
Message 22
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
While civil war in another country may not be a sufficient casus belli, it is an accepted standard that the prevention or halting of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or other serious crimes against humanity is enforceable as a peremptory norm, i.e. regardless of whether the offending party signed up to the treaties banning these. The UN security council has enshrined its right to intervene in such cases in resolutions, but arguably this is superfluous and everybody has a standing obligation to act in such cases.Â
To suggest that there is a âstanding obligation to actâ in this outside of international law seems self-contradictory to say the least. Under such conditions a state need only scream âGenocide!â and then launch an out and out attack on another, slaughter anyone who gets in the way (sorry âcause collateral damageâ) and effect regime change etc. They then simply need to 'justify' the invasion solely on the grounds that they had 'thought' that there was genocide (or stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction or whatever etc) taking place.
That's not the application of international law - that's the law of the jungle.
Evidently there always is a lot of hair-splitting over what precisely constitutes ethnic cleansing or serious crimes against humanity.Â
The devil is indeed in the detail - which is precisely why we have international law, state sovereignty, territorial jurisdiction and diplomatic protocol in the first place. For example Nazi Germany claimed that the Poles were committing oppressions, atrocities and killings of their ethnic German subjects as part of the pretext for Germanyâs invasion in 1939. And in 1999 NATO invaded Yugoslavia on a similar accusation of genocide and yet a United Nations court subsequently ruled that there had been no genocide in Kosovo.
To claim that the Nuremberg trials were pure "victor's justice" certainly goes too far. It is true that double standards were applied, especially in charges about planning aggressive war, where the USSR was obviously also guilty. However, there were also attempts to apply some equality of standards, for example in the trial of Doenitz. Above all some of the actions of the Nazi regime were clearly illegal by any existing or previous standard, so that the victors could hardly be accused of inventing a completely new set of rules.Â
Surely the whole point of this discussion is that the breaches of international law by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have now become anything but âclearly illegalâ. No-one has yet given a satisfactory explanation as to why it is that the likes of Alfred Jodl and Koki Hirota etc were found guilty by the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo and hanged for the crime of âwaging war of aggressionâ and yet the likes of Anthony Blair havenât even stood trial. -
Message 23
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Under such conditions a state need only scream âGenocide!â and then launch an out and out attack on another, slaughter anyone who gets in the way (sorry âcause collateral damageâ) and effect regime change etc. Â
That caricature of the legal position doesn't make sense, as a comparison with normal criminal law makes obvious. Pretty much regardless of where you live, you would be permitted to use deadly force to stop somebody who is out on a mass killing spree, shooting people at random. (My condoleances to the Dutch.) But that isn't a permit to shoot people at random yourself. There needs to be evidence that there was an emergency situation. However, in an emergency you don't have to consult a judge to get a warrant first.
The potential for abuse always exists. I think it can be argued that there was an abuse in the case of Iraq, because the motivation used to justify immediate action, i.e. the claim that Saddam Hussein was acquiring weapons of mass destruction and cooperating with jihadist terrorist groups, was flawed. Pretty transparently so, to people used to dealing with intelligence materials. That's not to say there was no case for using force to remove Saddam from power; his track record certainly constituted such a case -- but better preparation would not only have avoided legal difficulties, it would also have saved a lot of lives. On the other hand, I think Sarkozy was entirely justified in using the French air force to prevent the fall of Benghazi, regardless of what the UN mandate said, because there was an emergency situation that required immediate action.
For example Nazi claimed that Poles were comitting oppressions, atrocities and killing of their ethnic German subjects...Â
Not even entirely without justification, as far as I know; the Polish regime of the 1930s was not without it faults. However, it is clearly untenable to claim that Hitler invaded Poland to protect ethnic Germans, and everybody knew this at the time. Because of his previous treatment of the Czechs, but also because he quite openly made large territorial claims, because these territorial claims were designed to be unacceptable to the Poles, and because Nazi Germany blatantly strove to avoid a diplomatic solution. (Hitler said his biggest fear was that somebody would try to organize another Munich.) The numerous attrocities committed against the Poles by the German occupiers, from the invasion up to 1945, remove any doubt that Hitler was not inspired by humanitarian motives!
In contrast, NATO was not laying claim to the territory of Kosovo. The situation on the ground was murky, but the activities of ethnic militias during the Bosnian war left little doubt about the potential for disaster. Serbia was openly tolerating such extremist militias and shielding known war criminals from prosecution. The KLA was certainly not free from guilt, but the fundamental cause of the instability was Belgrade's policy to remove the rights and protections that the Albanian population in Kosovo had previously enjoyed. Holbrooke, requiescat in pace, made a bad mistake in Dayton when he did not build safeguards for the Albanians into the earlier peace agreement. NATO had no intention of occupying Serbia or attaching Serbian territory to NATO states.
the likes of Alfred Jodl and Koki Hirota...Â
Jodl and Hirota participated eagerly in plans to conquer large parts of the world. Tony Blair hasn't added as much as a square inch to British territory. This seems a fairly obvious distinction to me. I disapprove of many of Blair's actions, but to compare him with Jodl is absurd. Hirota's guilt is more debatable (he was found guilty by the narrowest of margins) but in 1936 his cabinet approved "Criteria for National Policy" that were not just expansionist but absurdly expansionist. The accusation that he conspired to attack China was certainly correct. He had his eyes set on chunks of the USSR and the South Pacific as well...
Also, the regimes supported by Jodl and Hirota used racist ideologies to justify both systematic and random killing on a large scale. There still is a big difference between civilian victims of "collatoral damage" and deliberate mass murder. It is regrettably true that in recent years, jingoist rethoric and bigotry (especially targeting muslims) have become mainstream in Western politics and that this appears to have had consequences on the ground that are often worrying and occasionally merit criminal investigation. It can also be argued that Western governments are far too lenient when their soldiers commit atrocities against foreigners. However, it is absurd to pretend that Blair would have condoned atrocities on the scale of those committed in the 1930s and 1940s. -
Message 24
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 13th April 2011
"after large numbers of Yugoslav civilians (both Serbian and Albanian) had been massacred by NATO."
I think neither the numbers of civilian casualties nor the intentions of the NATO forces in 1999 justify the use of the word "massacre". The death of innocent civilians caught up in war is bad enough without that emotive hyperbole.
Nor do I think it likely that any of our 'rulers' would declare that "they have the right to murder whoever they want, wherever they want and whenever they want" - even if there might be amongst the unhinged of this planet those who "promote that view"- be they 'neo-imperialists' or no.
Obviously, there can be no 'right' to murder.
They might declare they are not to blame for the deaths of those killed in a conflict in which they have intervened ( or intitiated) because their intentions were good and their goals were morally justified- or even legal.
What is the difference, by the way, between a 'neo-imperialist' and an imperialist in old money? -
Message 25
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 14th April 2011
Under such conditions a state need only scream âGenocide!â and then launch an out and out attack on another, slaughter anyone who gets in the way (sorry âcause collateral damageâ) and effect regime change etc.Â
That caricature of the legal position doesn't make sense, as a comparison with normal criminal law makes obvious.Â
Itâs hardly a caricature when it precisely describes the various neo-imperialist agressions over the last decade and a half.
Pretty much regardless of where you live, you would be permitted to use deadly force to stop somebody who is out on a mass killing spree, shooting people at random. Â
That analogy doesnât work. Take the Kosovo War for example. Yugoslavia wasnât out on âa mass killing spreeâ. If the situation had been one in which Yugoslavia had invaded, say, Hungary and Greece and Albania then it might make some sort of sense. But that thatâs not what happened.
But that isn't a permit to shoot people at random yourself.Â
Which is precisely what NATO did.
NATO killed coal miners and the families while they slept in their beds at Aleksinac. NATO bombed a train a Grdelica killing many passengers. NATO (repeatedly) bombed a column of refugees (in broad daylight) on the road to Dakovica killing over 70 civilians. NATO bombed a television and radio station in Belgrade killing journalists and make-up ladies. NATO blew up a passenger bus at Luzane killing over 30 commuters. NATO used cluster bombs to attack Nis University Hospital killing at least 10 people there and then bombed the Dedinje Hospital in Belgrade killing patients there. NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade killing diplomats. NATO bombed people going to market in Varvarin killing at least 10 shoppers. NATO bombed a nursing home in Surdulica killing old age pensioners. NATO fired an 88 HARM missile which struck a suburb of ⊠Sofia the capital of Bulgaria. 10 people were killed in a block of flats at Novi Pazar. And as if NATO's Dakovica massacre hadnât been enough, NATO then topped it all by incinerating over 100 civilians (including children) at Korisa.
There needs to be evidence that there was an emergency situation.Â
Indeed. But China didnât feel the need to launch a military attack against NATO because of the emergency. And those of us English who were appalled at Blairâs ordering the RAF to take part in this, nevertheless kept our opposition to his actions within the law.
However, in an emergency you don't have to consult a judge to get a warrant first.Â
Maybe not in domestic law (or in international law) but there was no international emergency before NATO attacked Yugoslavia in 1999. NATOâs aggression was in direct violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter:
Particularly relevant are sections 3 and 4:
'3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.'
The UN Charter was signed by the UK on 26 June 1945.
On the other hand, I think Sarkozy was entirely justified in using the French air force to prevent the fall of Benghazi, regardless of what the UN mandate said, because there was an emergency situation that required immediate action.Â
Unlike Blair, however, Franceâs action in Libya had the backing of UN Resolution 1973 behind it. It was, therefore, not illegal under international law. So there is no comparison of President Sarkozy with Blair.
NATO had no intention of occupying SerbiaÂ
The ultimatum sent by NATO to Belgrade on 23 February 1999 (i.e. before the war) says otherwise.
In the Rambouillet Accords, Appendix B, Section 8 demanded that:
'NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.'
Section 9 demanded that âNATO shall be exempt from duties, taxes, and other charges and inspections and custom regulations including providing inventories or other routine customs documentation, for personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, supplies, and provisions entering, exiting, or transiting the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in support of the Operation.â
Section 10 demanded that âThe authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia shall facilitate, on a priority basis and with all appropriate means, all movement of personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies, through or in the airspace, ports, airports, or roads used. No charges may be assessed against NATO for air navigation, landing, or takeoff of aircraft, whether government-owned or chartered. Similarly, no duties, dues, tolls or charges may be assessed against NATO ships, whether government-owned or chartered, for the mere entry and exit of ports. Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used in support of the operation shall not be subject to licensing or registration requirements, nor commercial insurance.â
Section 11 demanded that 'NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use.'
Section 17 demanded that âNATO and NATO personnel shall be immune from claims of any sort which arise out of activities in pursuance of the operationâ
Section 19 demanded that âCommercial undertakings operating in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia only in the service of NATO shall be exempt from local laws and regulations with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment and licensing and registration of employees, businesses, and corporations.â
Section 7 demanded that âNATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.â
And (last but not least) Section 6 demanded that âNATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal.â
Jodl and Hirota participated eagerly in plans to conquer large parts of the world. Tony Blair hasn't added as much as a square inch to British territory. Â
Jodl and Hirota etc werenât charged with participating 'eagerly in plans to conquer large parts of the world' or adding 'territory'. They were charged with waging war of aggression.
There still is a big difference between civilian victims of "collatoral damage" and deliberate mass murder.Â
There is indeed a big difference. Crimes against peace are not the same as crimes against humanity. They are 2 separate counts. And no-one is accusing Anthony Blair of âcrimes against humanityâ ⊠yet. Historians and lawyers appraising the hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from the Iraq War, however, may say otherwise. But one step at a time. The question on the table is why he hasnât stood trial for waging war of aggression. -
Message 26
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Thursday, 14th April 2011
"But that isn't a permit to shoot people at random yourself."
"Which is precisely what NATO did. NATO killed coal miners and the families while they slept in their beds at Aleksinac. NATO bombed a train a Grdelica killing many passengers. NATO (repeatedly) bombed a column of refugees (in broad daylight) on the road to Dakovica killing over 70 civilians. NATO bombed a television and radio station in Belgrade killing journalists and make-up ladies. NATO blew up a passenger bus at Luzane killing over 30 commuters. NATO used cluster bombs to attack Nis University Hospital killing at least 10 people there and then bombed the Dedinje Hospital in Belgrade killing patients there. NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade killing diplomats. NATO bombed people going to market in Varvarin killing at least 10 shoppers. NATO bombed a nursing home in Surdulica killing old age pensioners. NATO fired an 88 HARM missile which struck a suburb of ⊠Sofia the capital of Bulgaria. 10 people were killed in a block of flats at Novi Pazar. And as if NATO's Dakovica massacre hadnât been enough, NATO then topped it all by incinerating over 100 civilians (including children) at Korisa."
These deaths were not the product of random fire nor of deliberate targeting of non-combatants but a mixture of bad management and bad luck- exacerbated by a risk-averse policy to minimise allied casualties. That is not to dismiss these civilian casualites, but your narrative is a caricature of events. -
Message 27
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
I note Mr Hague was saying today the war won't be a staemate.
But if he looked at the history of fighting in LIbya until Panzerarmee Afrika decided to retreat toward Tunisia, fighting in LIbya was a very back and forth thing. UNl;ess we're about to give the rebels massive airlift capacity then they aren't going more then 5 miles off the coast road. Either Hague is deluding himself, or he and the other members of the Con-Dem coalition don't know much about Libya....
I would be very surprised if the so-called rebels can conquer western Libya, where Gaddafi has a lot of clan support. It's not lost on the western Libyans that the rebels have revived the flag of King Idris, a dictator in his own right. But while Idris favoured eastern Libyans in his dictatorial regime, Gaddafi favoured western Libyans in his.
Not all Libyans see the rebel cause as a great movement for democracy, the way Britain, France and the US apparently do....
Also, the West is very selective about who to invade. Congo has been ignored for years, despite countless atrocities, while Bahrain is allowed to kill its own citizens, because, after all, Bahrain is 'our' dictator, while Gaddafi's Libya is not. -
Message 28
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
the West is very selective about who to invadeÂ
Of course, it is. "The West" is simply not capable of invading everybody everywhere atrocities are committed. In fact, "the West" is not even capable of ridding itself from occasional atrocities, such as gang rapes, serial killings or shopping mall shooting sprees. The point of contention is whether "the West" does or should select who to invade based on "the international law." And even on this thread nobody can agree on what exactly "the international law" is. So, there you have it. -
Message 29
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
That's not the application of international law - that's the law of the jungle.Â
The one law which never was and never can be repealed, but only superceded. -
Message 30
Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Thursday, 10th November 2011
And now we wait and see what the future will behold...
-
Message 31
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 30th November 2011
-
Message 32
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 30th November 2011
<Whilst I have no problem in principle with stopping civilians getting killed, I think there are huge practical problems. There are also moral problems taking action which might actually lead to a particular conflict not coming to a swifter end, which I suspect is the case in Libya.Â
I think its fair to say, no-one in theory has any problem with civilians being protected but this surely is just a great excuse for all odds n' sods to go around the place bombing at will.
I reckon even the Chinese used this excuse in their invasions of Vietnam etc, and probably will in the future
-
Message 33
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 11th December 2011
today the ALA, RAF and USAF/USN/USMC will be launching attacks on Libya to stop The Colonel's attrocitiesÂ
Looks like "Mission Really Accomplished", there, at least.
if you want to get your own way you need to get a few innocents killed, get the "regime" to react and then NATO air forces will follow to bomb the bejesus out of the "regime" and you'll get what you want.Â
Tell that to the Syrians fighting for their freedom from Assad, with remarkably little NATO help. (Syrian oil is poor quality heavy crude)
I mean the KLA were hardly fighting their war with Salvation Army tactics Â
Perhaps not. Remind me how many dis-armed Bosnian Muslim men and boys ('protected' by the Dutch Battalion) were murdered by the Serbs at Srebrenica? Was it 8,000 or 9,000? I forget.) Don't you think that Srebrenica would harden your tactics, if you were Muslim?
What is your meta-message? That you don't like 'Christian' forces saving 'Muslim' lives?
One of the delights of this board closing in ten days, will be seeing the last of that sort gungho, racist nonsense.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óătv iD
±«Óătv navigation
±«Óătv links
±«Óătv © 2014 The ±«Óătv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.