|
Home Monthly Topics Index of Issues Articles About Us Links Help Wanted Contact Us |
|
|
| January Race, Class, and Civil Rights |
| February Poverty, Homelessness, and Unemployment |
| March Imperialism and Economic Injustice |
| April Environment |
| May Labor |
| June Population |
| July Violence |
| August Nuclear weapons |
| September Education, Information, and Communication |
| October Democracy and Religion |
| November Hunger and Health Care |
| December Children |
by Ron Forthofer
Originally in the Colorado Daily, 3/29/99
The Bush administration used this approach in dealing with Panama and the Clinton administration has used it in Iraq and now Serbia. Sometimes we even skip the pretext of negotiations and go directly to bombing such as with Afghanistan and Sudan last August. Our continued bombing of Iraq, the bombing of Serbia, and the attacks on Panama, Afghanistan and Sudan all are violations of international law.
U.S. credibility is questionable when it claims to be acting on principle in defending the Albanians in Kosovo. I say this because we allow some nations perceived as our allies (Indonesia, Turkey and Israel) to attack other countries and peoples and to commit atrocities with impunity. These so-called allies can do this because they know we will veto any sanctions against them in the UN.
Serbia’s crime is its attack on the Albanians in Kosovo, a province of Serbia. Kosovo is seeking to regain its autonomy within Serbia, or even its independence. However, the Mexican military and paramilitaries have attacked the Zapatistas in Chiapas to prevent them from gaining autonomy within Mexico without any threats against Mexico by the U.S. It appears that our attack on Serbia is driven by additional considerations besides the idea of defending the weak.
Why do our elected officials and their advisors wait until there is a crisis before they address the problem? Our ‘leaders’ ignored Serbia’s actions against the Albanians in Kosovo in the late 1980s and early in 1990 when Serbian President Milosevic repealed Kosovo’s autonomy and abridged the rights of the Albanian majority. Negotiation at that time may have stopped Milosevic in his tracks. Instead, we did nothing, and Milosevic and Tudjman, the leader of Croatia, intensified their highly nationalistic campaigns. They combined to inflame the region and their actions helped start the bloodshed in Bosnia. Given that nothing was done to address the injustices in Kosovo during the last ten years, the Albanians resorted to arms. Milosevic has responded with overwhelming force and brutality to destroy the Kosovo Liberation Army and civilians suffer.
Clinton claims that we must stop this aggression by the Serbian forces. Unfortunately, Clinton has resorted to aggression in an attempt to deter the Serbs. Clinton states we are forced to do this because Milosevic rejected our ultimatums. As usual, Clinton and Congress are not concerned that the bombing is a violation of the UN Charter.
Killing more people to stop the killing in Kosovo is self-defeating. Most agree that the bombing, at best, might stop the immediate Serbian campaign in Kosovo. Bombing will not solve the problem and may actually wind up broadening the conflict to Serbia’s neighbors. We have seen that the Dayton Accords have stopped the killing in Bosnia, a laudable accomplishment, but it has not advanced the cause of peace. Approximately 30,000 international troops are still in Bosnia to prevent the outbreak of fighting and there is no end in sight.
It is time to consider new means of preventing violence. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) provided an example, but one that was too limited in scope. The OSCE placed about 1500 unarmed observers in Kosovo to document the situation there. Unfortunately, the U.S. failed to support this effort.
If there had been 20,000 observers, would this have made a difference? Based on experiences of groups like Peace Brigades International, Witness for Peace, Christian Peacemaker Teams and the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, among others, observers are able to deter and limit violence.
Why not create an international peacekeeper group? Instead of relying on volunteers, nations would reallocate a portion of their military budgets to the creation and training of unarmed peacekeepers. Provide the members of these groups with the most modern communications and video recording technology. Instead of 1500 volunteers, you could have 100,000 well-equipped personnel available for action.
The combination of real negotiations conducted through the UN before we get close to a crisis and the use of unarmed peacekeepers can make a difference. To work, though, this approach requires a change in thinking; the U.S. must support the UN both politically and financially. We cannot continue to rely on our veto. Given the tens of millions who have been killed during this century, peacekeepers and international cooperation are certainly worth a try.