Some
Ethical Aspects on NATO's
Intervention in Kosovo
Part B
TFF PressInfo
74
July 29,1999
Stereotyping and discrimination
Ask yourself whether NATO's bombing and subsequent
occupation could have been done against any other nation in
today's Europe. Whether any other country than Yugoslavia
and any other people but Serbs is so despised? The plight of
the Albanian refugees is in focus, but how well and how
extensive did media cover that of the Serbs, Goranis,
Montenegrin, Turks and Gypsies in Kosovo? The refugee camps
in Macedonia and Albania entered our living rooms - but did
the human suffering of people living in and fleeing to
bombed-out Yugoslavia?
Recent Albanian extremist violence against Serbs is
reported with 'understanding,' presented as (justifiable)
revenge for what Serb police, military and paramilitary
units did. But the media which told the story this way,
never 'explained' that Serb ethnic cleansing after
NATO started bombing could be 'understood' as
(justifiable) anger at what THEY saw as the destruction of
their entire country commissioned or demanded - as it was -
by moderate as well as extremist Kosovo-Albanians.
Everybody knows that humanitarian aid should be based on
needs only. But people living in Yugoslavia shall not
receive any assistance 'as long as Milosevic is at the
helmet.' One wonders whether the international human rights
community is on collective holiday? Since the early 1990s,
Serb human and minority rights were never cared for to the
extent e.g. Croatian, Bosniak and Albanian rights were.
In social science, stereotyping can be defined as 'a
one-sided, exaggerated and normally prejudicial view of a
group, tribe or class of people, and is usually associated
with racism and sexism.' Stereotypes are often resistant to
change or correction from countervailing evidence, because
they create a sense of social solidarity. Is it so unlikely
that the United States and NATO did just a bit of
stereotyping to maintain alliance credibility and
solidarity?
Authoritarian politics undermining international
democracy.
NATO now has a near-monopoly on conflict-management. The
UN, the EU, single governments in the region, OSCE and NGOs
went out of the region when NATO went in. No NATO government
declared war, no parliaments voted about participation in
the campaign. (In contrast, the 'dictatorship's parliament
in Belgrade debated both the Rambouillet and the G8 plan).
None of the democracies in NATO dared challenge the
near-total US military and political dominance in this
operation or that of the "Quint" - the five biggest NATO
leaders. President Clinton violated the War Powers Act; no
non-NATO country was consulted when NATO chopped up Kosovo
in 'peacekeeping' zones; numerous national and international
laws and human rights were violated by NATO decision-makers
- impunity now established as a norm for them. Why is this
important? Because all these facts are outcomes of
moral choices.
From the perspective of world democracy it is a huge
setback that the United Nations is now an organisation that
is invited to 'endorse' NATO action rather than serve as the
body that expresses the will of the international community
- all of it. Decisions are increasingly debated and made in
less transparent forums such as G7, the Contact group, Davos
and, who knows - Bilderberg - and crisis management
conducted on cellular phones. The G7 in effect wrote UN SC
Resolution 1244.
The term 'international community' was part of the
propaganda. In fact, it signifies some ten state leaders and
foreign ministers, not even all 19 NATO members. IF the
international community were truly the actor here, why was
the United Nations - with ten times more members than NATO -
not the central discussion forum, the central actor, the
central negotiator, why is the present mission not
established and run by the UN?
Rhetorics only compounded this slide towards
authoritarianism: Suddenly, when the West had no need for
Milosevic, he was called a dictator, a serial ethnic
cleanser etc. and there is now a draft in the US to
designate Yugoslavia status as a terrorist state.
Repeatedly, phrases were used like: 'The US has stated...'
or 'We have made it abundantly clear that...' - meaning that
everybody else has to agree. 'Milosevic knows what he has to
do, and he knows which number to call if he wants bombs to
stop.' 'These conditions must be met before we will even
consider stopping the bombing.' The stronger sets the rule
of the game, to humiliate.
Lack of transparency - why the Rambouillet texts
are not published
Thus, NATO early defined itself as an organisation that
does not negotiate. Rambouillet - being a cheap
media-diplomatic manipulation - was a dictate (as everybody
who cared to read it knows). The Rambouillet texts - the
original, the expanded and the Yugoslav government's - are
undoubtedly the single most important historical documents
explaining why NATO went to war, why it is in the Balkans
and what is supposed to happen in the future there. But did
any NATO government translate and publish it, perhaps with
an introduction on how the 'negotiations' were conducted?
Would it not be reasonable to make it available to citizens
- as ministries make so many other treaty texts available as
part of their public information policy? Why not give
citizens a chance to judge the issues: What's in the texts?
Was there a peace treaty? Was it fair play? Was it fair to
start bombing because Belgrade said no?
NATO's own premises violated
What indisputably started out as bombing 'because they
won't sign the Rambouillet Accord' was rapidly turned into
'we bomb because Mr. Milosevic had a plan of ethnic
cleansing.' Gone was any mention of the indisputable fact
that a civil war had raged in the province for 13 months, a
war that broke out only when KLA surfaced.
Conspicuously, virtually all mass graves now found in the
Kosovo province are products of atrocities committed
AFTER March 24 when NATO started bombing. Contrary to
what Western leaders tell us, eager as they are to justify
their Balkan bombing blunder, this does not prove that NATO
stopped an already ongoing mass expulsion or genocide.
Contrary to what NATO told the world, few today believe
that the bombing of Yugoslavia was not a violation of the
NATO charter and not an aggression. (Many seem to think that
that is OK given the monstrous policies of the Belgrade
regime). Few believe that there is more stability in Europe
today than before March 24. Few believe that it is right to
kill so many innocent civilians and that NATO was not at
war. Hard evidence also tell that we were fooled by NATO
when its spin doctors presented fantastic military successes
stories. Funnily enough, many still cling to the belief that
NATO did not release a humanitarian catastrophe but, rather,
stopped one.
An increasingly 'politically correct' human rights
activism
It is a simple ethical principle in both
conflict-resolution and human rights work to recognise ALL
parties' human suffering and rights, recognise ALL
violations no matter the perpetrator and speak up against
them! However, MORE people died and were wounded in
Yugoslavia under NATO's bombs than during the 13-month war
between Yugoslav/Serb units and KLA. The destruction of
future possibilities for 11 million in FRY achieved - and
will achieve - much less attention than that of 800.000
Albanians who are rapidly returning to the Kosovo province.
The 650.00+ refugees in Serbia and Montenegro - victims of
ethnic cleansing elsewhere since 1995 - have attracted
disproportionately little media attention.
The international human rights community has been
rightfully attentive to the human rights violations against
the Kosovo-Albanians and woefully ignorant (with exceptions
such as Amnesty International and the British Helsinki Human
Rights Group) about the human rights of Serbs everywhere,
including Kosovo. Furthermore, it is particularly deplorable
that the human rights community, particularly in the United
States and other NATO countries, has had no more to say
about NATO's flagrant, systematic - and much larger - human
rights violations. Throughout the Balkan crisis, we have
seen human rights organisations and advocates moving
dangerously near to 'political correctness' either by a)
speaking about politics and advocating bombing and political
measures outside their field of expertise, b) keeping silent
about certain groups' human rights that did not fit into the
conflict-management of the West, or c) keeping equally
silent about the human rights violations of NATO."
The intellectual's moral imperative is to
challenge power
TFF's director finally touches on a related theme: "I am
sure that, when reading the above, some will say: 'pro-Serb
arguments!' and believe they have said something
significant. But this is to reduce complex matters to the
equally moralising as irrelevant question (for
conflict-resolution), Which side are you on? It SHOULD be
intellectually possible to imagine that there can be
different diagnoses, different prognoses and different types
of treatment in conflict-management and peacekeeping. It
should be part of liberal democracy to have them presented
also when the powers that be do not consider them
politically correct. So you may wonder why those who shaped,
promoted and legitimated the West's unethical conflict
(mis)management in the Balkans since 1990 were never accused
of being 'pro-Croat' or 'pro-Muslim' or 'pro-Albanian.
In a violent world and a violence-prone time like ours, I
do not think that politically correct peace research is
peace research. Perhaps, in this case, it was particularly
difficult to strive for analytical objectivity because
NATO's project was spearheaded by statesmen and ministers
who once upon a time were socialists, peace and anti-NATO
activists, liberals and social democrats - some still
professing to be. In short, from traditions rather critical
to militarist policies.
The relevant question remains," ends Oberg, "how we can
learn to approach conflicts as complex matters encompassing
elements of history, structures, culture and psychology that
must be applied specifically to each case. The intellectual
and moral challenge remains how to handle conflicts with the
least violence possible."
© TFF 1999
You are welcome to re-print, copy, archive, quote
from or re-post this item, but please retain the source.
TFF's website has all the relevant links to Iraq,
the Balkans, including media there + peace research, and
non-violence
Teacher, activist, journalist?? You'll always find
something interesting at TFF.
Get your daily global news from the leading media
on TFF's site, all in one place.
|